Planar Binding is SLAVERY

[RoboEmperor]

I'm putting all of my compiled Planar Binding RAW and RAI here for easy reference.


Crafting an item with a bound elemental is similar to making a wondrous item, except that calling and binding an elemental is an integral part of creating the item. All bound-elemental items have a planar binding spell as a prerequisite, but simply casting the spell as part of the item creation is not sufficient. You must cast the spell normally, using the item that is to hold the elemental and a Khyber dragonshard as a receptacle. The elemental receives its normal saving throw to resist. While the elemental resides in the receptacle, you must compel it to accept bondage in the item by making an opposed Charisma check, as specified in the lesser planar binding spell description.

This quote is very important as it establishes a couple of very important facts.
1. Compel is INVOLUNTARY. Non consensual. Forced. So when lesser planar binding says "compel the creature to perform a service" it doesn't mean entice it with bribes and rewards, it means force it into complete submission by overwhelming it with your personality/willpower/charisma.
2. Eternal Bondage and Servitude is NOT an unreasonable command.
Note that this is NOT a special interaction between the Bind Elemental feat and Planar Binding. The above quote clearly states that you must use Planar Binding's charisma check as-is, completely unmodified, to use this feat.


Planar Binding: The spell lets you attempt to trap up to three outsiders of no more than 12 Hit Dice, which can then be forced to do your bidding. This kind of coercion, however, becomes much easier if the outsider is offered a reward or bribe. Lesser planar binding and greater planar binding also have their uses if you are not limited by spells known.

Official 3.5 material that states you can FORCE a creature to do your bidding and that bribes and rewards are OPTIONAL.


Mortals can make binding agreements with outsiders. Spells such as lesser planar ally, planar ally, and greater planar ally allow a spellcaster to bargain for the services of an outsider or elemental. The planar binding spells work in a similar manner, allowing a character to task a particular creature in return for its freedom.

Official 3.5 material that states that FREEDOM from the cage/magic circle is the PAYMENT.


The door to this room is locked (Open Lock DC 35). Inside is a powerful balor demon, forced to serve the Votaries for five hundred years by means of a carefully negotiated greater planar binding spell. Its duties consist of torturing captives and learning whatever facts it can for Crestian (see area 13). The demon’s victims rarely last for long as it immolates them in its excitement. The balor resents its binding, so it does what it can to betray and disrupt its master’s plans. If the PCs do not immediately attack the demon and attempt to parlay first, it quickly divulges all it knows about Crestian and the Votaries, warning the characters that the lich lord has a sphere of annihilation.

Official 3.5 material that states servitude for a fixed number of days is NOT an open ended task.


A mad lich (human lich wizard 11; MM 166) used a planar binding spell to call and bind a whisper demon. Realizing that its new servant will be more powerful with allip slaves, the lich seeks creatures for the whisper demon to turn into allips, as well as new magic items and spells for itself. The “funeral procession” consists of the lich, nine derro who worship it as a god, and the whisper demon. The hooded derro carry the lich lying in state on a bier while the incorporeal demon rides along, hiding within the lich’s body. The derro march solemnly toward any sentient creatures they meet. When the strangers are within the range of the demon’s maddening whispers, the group attacks. The derro act as the lich’s bodyguards and stay close to the undead, using ranged attacks and their sound burst ability against foes. The whisper demon charges, using its incorporeal touches and bringing as many foes as possible within range of its maddening whispers. The lich casts offensive spells with abandon, not caring whether the demon or its derro worshipers are caught in their effects.

Official example of a wizard using Planar Binding to enslave an outsider and use it as an expendable minion going so far as to cause friendly fire. The bound outsider has no choice but to take the friendly fire and continue serving the wizard.


A wizard named Regenar used a planar binding spell to enslave a pain devil. The devil tortures its master’s prisoners, teasing out secrets with profane skill. It relishes the moment when it can turn its talents on the mortal who bound it.

Official example of a wizard using Planar Binding to enslave a Devil.


The basic version of the creature can be called using lesser planar ally, but advanced ancestors require higher-level versions of the spell.

A typical voor can be called using a lesser planar ally spell. (More powerful voors might require planar ally or greater planar ally).

You can call advanced creatures with Planar Binding because if you can do it with Planar Ally, no reason you can't do it with Planar Binding.



All of the above quotes which are from multiple source books all say Planar Binding is slavery so it is completely clear without a doubt that WotC wanted players to use Planar Binding to make outsiders their slaves.

So if a DM says Planar Binding is consensual
or if a DM says Planar Binding requires payment
or if a DM says that free service is an "unreasonable command"
or if a DM says serving you for a fixed number of days is an open ended task
or if a DM says an outsider with spellcraft can just decide to wait 15 days until Magic Circle ends and never give you a charisma check

show him this post and respectfully tell him that he is wrong.

[flappeercraft]

Well, yeah. That’s the entire point of Planar Binding. You get a free slave. But then again there is nothing forcing the bound creature to follow your will once released, that’s why bribing is usually required.

[RoboEmperor]

Well, yeah. That’s the entire point of Planar Binding. You get a free slave. But then again there is nothing forcing the bound creature to follow your will once released, that’s why bribing is usually required.

I had this debate with more than one person. Way more. Like a lot more because a lot of DMs miss the entire point of Planar Binding. So having a list of RAW that definitively proves them wrong is handy.

There's ways around the revenge. My favorite is before their time is up you put them back in the cage/magic circle and coerce them into servitude again and again and again. Basically the deal is "I'll temporarily let you out of this cage if you serve me." not "I will free you if you serve me for a short while." Make voluntarily going back into a magic circle part of the deal and you don't have to beat their will save a second time. And then in the end mindrape them once i get access to that spell. Other people online suggested you just kill the guy before their time is up but this limits you to outsiders you can kill.

[Fizban]

Sorry mate, but a list of "RAW" examples isn't going to convince anyone that thinks running Planar Binding that way is bogus to change their mind. Especially when the RAW is God crowd ignores the same sort of sources (example encounters, statblocks, advice on spell usage, etc) whenever it's convenient. Congratulations, you found a couple examples of writers using the spell in exactly the way everyone knows it's always been broken. Yay? Doesn't change the fact that the original text is entirely up to DM interpretation, as is the use of of any individual piece of text in the books you're quoting.

We don't need people to tell us what RAW they've found. We need people to take responsibility for their games instead of pretending they're slaves to RAW.

I was kinda hoping there was a point here, like the fact that slavery on that scale is pretty obviously the sort of capital E tier Evil that should get any practitioner busted immediately down to Evil alignment (like murder in cold blood).

[RoboEmperor]

Sorry mate, but a list of "RAW" examples isn't going to convince anyone that thinks running Planar Binding that way is bogus to change their mind. Especially when the RAW is God crowd ignores the same sort of sources (example encounters, statblocks, advice on spell usage, etc) whenever it's convenient. Congratulations, you found a couple examples of writers using the spell in exactly the way everyone knows it's always been broken. Yay? Doesn't change the fact that the original text is entirely up to DM interpretation, as is the use of of any individual piece of text in the books you're quoting.

We don't need people to tell us what RAW they've found. We need people to take responsibility for their games instead of pretending they're slaves to RAW.

I was kinda hoping there was a point here, like the fact that slavery on that scale is pretty obviously the sort of capital E tier Evil that should get any practitioner busted immediately down to Evil alignment (like murder in cold blood).

If you're gonna house rule then say you're house ruling but don't try to pass your house rule off as RAW or even RAI because it's not. That's the point of this thread. To shut these DMs up and make them admit they're house ruling.

[Minion #6]

It's not like there's anything even inherently wrong about houseruling. But be clear that that's what you're doing.

[Tvtyrant]

None of these are rules text for planar binding and have no impact on RAW. This is not a rules as written argument but a rules as intended.


Also if you want unlimited power within the rules why use Planar Binding when Ice Assassin abuse is so much better, and available with a cheap scroll?

[RoboEmperor]

It's not like there's anything even inherently wrong about houseruling. But be clear that that's what you're doing.

Couldn't agree more.


None of these are rules text for planar binding and have no impact on RAW. This is not a rules as written argument but a rules as intended.


Also if you want unlimited power within the rules why use Planar Binding when Ice Assassin abuse is so much better, and available with a cheap scroll?

It's a mix of RAW and RAI. The first quote establishes the term "compel" as non consensual. Official uses of the spell is RAI.

Ice Assassin is not cheap. A scroll costs 48,825gp making it available only in a Metropolis and the DM has full control of what minions are available. Furthermore it's usually the no.1 banned spell, not permanent because unlike simulacrum it cannot be healed and damage to it can only be repaired expensively in a lab, and I don't want unlimited power. I want a long duration powerful expendable minion for free instead of round duration weakling minions that can't fight and only BFC.

A personal rule of mine is to never bind or make a simulacrum of a creature with Wish, which is why I don't use Pit Fiends anymore despite them looking cool.

[ManicOppressive]

If you're gonna house rule then say you're house ruling but don't try to pass your house rule off as RAW or even RAI because it's not. That's the point of this thread. To shut these DMs up and make them admit they're house ruling.

Speaking as a DM and a connoisseur of other, worse DMs, I have never once met a DM who would respond to this with anything other than "Yeah, I guess I am--great--and if you interrupt my table for this again you can get out of my house."

Strict RAW debates are fine, but let's not pretend they're fundamentally any different from hard-Theoretical optimization discussion--nice, and academically useful for the game perhaps, but not actually a realistic look at how the game functions.

[RoboEmperor]

Speaking as a DM and a connoisseur of other, worse DMs, I have never once met a DM who would respond to this with anything other than "Yeah, I guess I am--great--and if you interrupt my table for this again you can get out of my house."

Strict RAW debates are fine, but let's not pretend they're fundamentally any different from hard-Theoretical optimization discussion--nice, and academically useful for the game perhaps, but not actually a realistic look at how the game functions.

Which is why interviews are important. I make it clear from the get go that my entire build will revolve around planar binding and if said DM doesn't like that then we go our separate ways. If there is a debate it will happen in the interview. Some DMs honestly think that Planar Binding can only be used consensually and when i showed them some of the above quotes they say "Oh, ok, I was wrong, then yeah you can bind these outsiders for free but I warn you, if you make a mistake and one of them gets free you're in a lot of trouble."

This isn't strict RAW btw. As Tvtyrant pointed out this is also RAI. This isn't some rule lawyering technicality. This is using Planar Binding both as intended by its creators and as stated in the rules.

I also take care to bind outsiders who are either barely above animals so no higher organization comes to their rescue, or fiends who will blame the victim for its weakness and take the opportunity to climb the ladders of hell/abyss rather than rescue the victim.

[Segev]

Nothing stops you from politely apologizing for the inconvenience of calling them, and the distrust of the trap, and attempting to negotiate a more convenient time for the Outsider to be called up to negotiate for something of mutual benefit. You don't have to do the opposed Charisma check to compel it to accept the bargain. You can use it as a glorified phone call to ask to negotiate for services rendered.

As with most things, it's how you use it that determines how it demonstrates your alignment.

[Psyren]

I find the premise of this thread suspect to say the least. It's a very elaborate (and tonally, unnecessarily confrontational) form of Composition Fallacy - that because a given NPC organization or campaign setting used Planar Binding in a certain way, that way should be broadly applicable to any use by the PCs too. Some of my specific objections to that line of reasoning:

1) Starting with the dragonshard stuff for "eternal binding", that's Eberron-specific, and none of the other examples are "eternal." Even the Balor in ToM has a limited duration of servitude, albeit one that is longer than many sapient creatures' lifetimes.

2) I think you're reading too much into the ToM bindee's "resentment." Sure a Balor would rather be free than not (it's made of Chaos after all) but the Votaries were able to bind it as long as they did because it gets something out of the deal it wouldn't have gotten otherwise (a continual stream of mortal torture victims, which they as a thoroughly evil organization - even worse than Vecna's "regular" followers - would be all too happy to provide.) We weren't given the specific terms of the deal, but it's a safe bet that bit was part of it since both sides benefit.

3) Even if that servitude is truly as rotten a deal for the Balor as you believe, you appear to be assuming that just because a bunch of elite followers of Vecna were able to negotiate some pretty advantageous terms with such a creature, that any PC should be capable of the same. Vecna is god of secrets, so strongarming those negotiations would be a cinch for any number of reasons. How they pulled it off is much less relevant than the fact that their success can't really be extrapolated to any party. In other words, you're attributing that solely to the Charisma check and concluding that all bindings can be that lopsided, when there are many other factors at play.

I have other issues with the line of reasoning in the OP but the main point is really this - Just because NPCs (and villains/antagonists especially) can perform a certain act or get a certain result from a given act, it doesn't mean the PCs should also. The villains are the ones who sell their souls, or call upon Lovecraftian entities, or find the evil artifact whose collateral damage could end the world - and yes, the ones who work out how to bind powerful demons to their doom fortress for centuries at a time (essentially for set dressing) in exchange for debasing a lot of innocent lives. Unless you're running a specific and atypical kind of campaign, the PCs are generally not following suit. That might very well be a dealbreaker given your own expectations for how you wanted PB to be used, and that's okay.

[Segev]

Personally, I like using planar binding to get a small swarm of Lantern Archons following me around, because they're as good as a daylight spell for most purposes, they're excellent messengers on the same plane, and they're generally friendly as long as you're not too evil in front of them. (Not a problem for most PCs.) Negotiating something that is mutually beneficial is usually pretty easy, too: they're not often on the Prime, and they probably have tasks they'd love to get done, so offering them freedom to pursue those when not working for you can go a long way towards it being a friendly relationship.

[Rhedyn]

Planar Binding is one of those things that is perfectly fair for the DM to houserule.

Here I thought this was going to be a thread about how using the spell is bad.

D&D 5e changed it up which might be why some 3.5 DMs are running it like that.

[RoboEmperor]

Nothing stops you from politely apologizing for the inconvenience of calling them, and the distrust of the trap, and attempting to negotiate a more convenient time for the Outsider to be called up to negotiate for something of mutual benefit. You don't have to do the opposed Charisma check to compel it to accept the bargain. You can use it as a glorified phone call to ask to negotiate for services rendered.

As with most things, it's how you use it that determines how it demonstrates your alignment.

Yeah there's a lot of quotes that say this can be a consensual agreement or contract. But Planar Binding being consensual is obvious and doesn't require proof. I didn't think non conesnsual planar binding requires proof either but i was wrong.


I find the premise of this thread suspect to say the least. It's a very elaborate (and tonally, unnecessarily confrontational) form of Composition Fallacy - that because a given NPC organization or campaign setting used Planar Binding in a certain way, that way should be broadly applicable to any use by the PCs too. Some of my specific objections to that line of reasoning:

1) Starting with the dragonshard stuff for "eternal binding", that's Eberron-specific, and none of the other examples are "eternal." Even the Balor in ToM has a limited duration of servitude, albeit one that is longer than many sapient creatures' lifetimes.

2) I think you're reading too much into the ToM bindee's "resentment." Sure a Balor would rather be free than not (it's made of Chaos after all) but the Votaries were able to bind it as long as they did because it gets something out of the deal it wouldn't have gotten otherwise (a continual stream of mortal torture victims, which they as a thoroughly evil organization - even worse than Vecna's "regular" followers - would be all too happy to provide.) We weren't given the specific terms of the deal, but it's a safe bet that bit was part of it since both sides benefit.

3) Even if that servitude is truly as rotten a deal for the Balor as you believe, you appear to be assuming that just because a bunch of elite followers of Vecna were able to negotiate some pretty advantageous terms with such a creature, that any PC should be capable of the same. Vecna is god of secrets, so strongarming those negotiations would be a cinch for any number of reasons. How they pulled it off is much less relevant than the fact that their success can't really be extrapolated to any party. In other words, you're attributing that solely to the Charisma check and concluding that all bindings can be that lopsided, when there are many other factors at play.

I have other issues with the line of reasoning in the OP but the main point is really this - Just because NPCs (and villains/antagonists especially) can perform a certain act or get a certain result from a given act, it doesn't mean the PCs should also. The villains are the ones who sell their souls, or call upon Lovecraftian entities, or find the evil artifact whose collateral damage could end the world - and yes, the ones who work out how to bind powerful demons to their doom fortress for centuries at a time (essentially for set dressing) in exchange for debasing a lot of innocent lives. Unless you're running a specific and atypical kind of campaign, the PCs are generally not following suit. That might very well be a dealbreaker given your own expectations for how you wanted PB to be used, and that's okay.

3 of the quotes are for players not NPCs so I don't think the fallacy applies. Especially the item creation feat for players and the one describing mage archetypes for players. Tone is unnecessarily confrontational because these quotes were sought after in anger instead of academic curiosity. If I dug through 30+ books to find these quotes for curiosity rather than to fight DMs with then my tone wouldn't have been so confrontational.

It might help if you see how these quotes helped me directly.

Let's say I bind a Hezrou and have it serve me for 11 days since I have caster level of 11.

A DM says "You gotta pay the Hezrou money or give it live sacrifices if you want its service."
I show him quote #2, 3, and 5. Payment is optional.

The DM then says "He has spellcraft so he knows the magic circle will end in a few days so he'll just wait it out and kill you once it's free."
I show him quote #1 and 2. #1 really seals the deal as an untagged compulsion effect and not a negotiation. #4 helps a little too. #2 shows the RAI. WotC wanted summoner players to enslave outsiders

The DM then says "serving for 11 days is an open-ended task so he gets an immediate chance to escape"
I show him quote #4. 500 years is not an open ended task and requires a CL of 182,500 to accomplish if he was right.

At this point the DM admits he's wrong, or goes into some kind of rant yelling "there is no free lunch" (wtf does that even mean) and I leave the table because the DM is a tool.

If you're saying you can't force an outsider into an eternity of servitude with the Charisma check, you're probably right. There's no RAW or official examples saying you're right or wrong. Eternal bondage in the 1st example was achieved via a feat, and I think the 500 years deal was made by Vecna? So really special circumstances, not the norm. And that's fine. But you can definitively force an outsider into slavery for at least 1day/caster level by both RAW and RAI for free and there's nothing a DM can do to prove this wrong.

In any case I don't think that Composition Fallacy applies here.

[ezekielraiden]

I appreciate that this is a thorn in your side, but frankly this feels more appropriate for a blog post or the like. It's a declaration, rather than a topic of discussion, and that's why you'll get pushback at least as often as (if not more than) support. It won't help that anyone who agrees with you may feel reluctant to say so because they don't want to feel like they are just a means to an end, e.g. their words are just ammunition for your bouts with DMs who disagree with you over this spell.

[magicalmagicman]

I find the premise of this thread suspect to say the least. It's a very elaborate (and tonally, unnecessarily confrontational) form of Composition Fallacy - that because a given NPC organization or campaign setting used Planar Binding in a certain way, that way should be broadly applicable to any use by the PCs too. Some of my specific objections to that line of reasoning:

1) Starting with the dragonshard stuff for "eternal binding", that's Eberron-specific, and none of the other examples are "eternal." Even the Balor in ToM has a limited duration of servitude, albeit one that is longer than many sapient creatures' lifetimes.

2) I think you're reading too much into the ToM bindee's "resentment." Sure a Balor would rather be free than not (it's made of Chaos after all) but the Votaries were able to bind it as long as they did because it gets something out of the deal it wouldn't have gotten otherwise (a continual stream of mortal torture victims, which they as a thoroughly evil organization - even worse than Vecna's "regular" followers - would be all too happy to provide.) We weren't given the specific terms of the deal, but it's a safe bet that bit was part of it since both sides benefit.

3) Even if that servitude is truly as rotten a deal for the Balor as you believe, you appear to be assuming that just because a bunch of elite followers of Vecna were able to negotiate some pretty advantageous terms with such a creature, that any PC should be capable of the same. Vecna is god of secrets, so strongarming those negotiations would be a cinch for any number of reasons. How they pulled it off is much less relevant than the fact that their success can't really be extrapolated to any party. In other words, you're attributing that solely to the Charisma check and concluding that all bindings can be that lopsided, when there are many other factors at play.

I have other issues with the line of reasoning in the OP but the main point is really this - Just because NPCs (and villains/antagonists especially) can perform a certain act or get a certain result from a given act, it doesn't mean the PCs should also. The villains are the ones who sell their souls, or call upon Lovecraftian entities, or find the evil artifact whose collateral damage could end the world - and yes, the ones who work out how to bind powerful demons to their doom fortress for centuries at a time (essentially for set dressing) in exchange for debasing a lot of innocent lives. Unless you're running a specific and atypical kind of campaign, the PCs are generally not following suit. That might very well be a dealbreaker given your own expectations for how you wanted PB to be used, and that's okay.

The spell is in the Player's Handbook. It's meant to be used by players not NPCs. The quotes RoboEmperor provided merely show how the spell is supposed to work because the spell description wasn't as clear as it should be.

[zergling.exe]

The spell is in the Player's Handbook. It's meant to be used by players not NPCs. The quotes RoboEmperor provided merely show how the spell is supposed to work because the spell description wasn't as clear as it should be.

Two problems with this argument:
1) This means ALL spells are for PCs and not NPCs because there are no spells in the DMG, so therefore NPCs should not cast any spells because "spells are made for player use". This also applies to all monsters in the MMs.
2) Planar Binding has no legal creatures to call, because they are all in the MM, which is for DMs, not the players and thus PCs cannot call them.

edit: Also class, skill, feat, equipment, and combat rules are all for PCs and not NPCs. This will prove to be very problematic for you when NPCs have to use entirely custom rules.
edit 2: And then you have the Exp, magic items, prestige classes, flight rules, environment rules and all sorts of other stuff in the DMG is for NPCs and not players.

[Deadline]

The spell is in the Player's Handbook. It's meant to be used by players not NPCs. The quotes RoboEmperor provided merely show how the spell is supposed to work because the spell description wasn't as clear as it should be.

I strongly question the RAI argument, because those quotes come from a variety of sources written by a variety of authors (and editors) who almost certainly weren't following the same intent. Trying to read them that way is just as problematic as it sounds.

And starting the thread by recommending that players be confrontational a-holes to their GMs does a disservice to anyone who would seek to follow this advice.

[Segev]

DMs will rule as DMs will rule. You're right: the "worst" the DM can rule by RAW is that the creature can insist you give him that opposed Cha check and then gets an immediate extra save for "open-ended" contracts. But if you're having to argue this hard with your DM, you've already lost, because brow-beating a DM into giving you your way leads to angry DMs, rocs falling, and ... well, you know the rest.

I mean, have you ever had a DM who wouldn't say, "Okay, but I don't care what the RAW say; I'm running it my way," if they honestly disliked the RAW?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

OP's textual support is attempting to show at least two things regarding Planar Binding:
(1) You don't need enticements or rewards to compel the creature to do your bidding. Freedom can be its own reward.
(2) General servitude for [CL] days is text supported.

I believe (1) is patently obvious from the text of the spell itself and does not require supplementary support - though OP's former GM might prefer to believe otherwise. The spell description explicitly states that enticements and the terms of service merely modify the oppose charisma check, and even then within explicit limits.

(2) is fine as long as you go full lawyer about the phrasing of the servitude, and you stick to no longer than [CL] number of days of service. Elemental item binding in one campaign setting and one NPC group bending the rules are not generally applicable guides to indefinite binding.

That said I don't think OP should be all that surprised that a GM would look for rules-based ways to tone down one of the most powerful spells in the game, and abusing Planar Binding in an actual table setting is just asking for trouble (in most cases).

[RoboEmperor]

OP's textual support is attempting to show at least two things regarding Planar Binding:
(1) You don't need enticements or rewards to compel the creature to do your bidding. Freedom can be its own reward.
(2) General servitude for [CL] days is text supported.

I believe (1) is patently obvious from the text of the spell itself and does not require supplementary support - though OP's former GM might prefer to believe otherwise. The spell description explicitly states that enticements and the terms of service merely modify the oppose charisma check, and even then within explicit limits.

(2) is fine as long as you go full lawyer about the phrasing of the servitude, and you stick to no longer than [CL] number of days of service. Elemental item binding in one campaign setting and one NPC group bending the rules are not generally applicable guides to indefinite binding.

That said I don't think OP should be all that surprised that a GM would look for rules-based ways to tone down one of the most powerful spells in the game, and abusing Planar Binding in an actual table setting is just asking for trouble (in most cases).

This guy fully understands what I'm saying. There's a reason I'm not an English or Law major. You forgot (3), outsiders cannot just wait out the magic circle duration.


DMs will rule as DMs will rule. You're right: the "worst" the DM can rule by RAW is that the creature can insist you give him that opposed Cha check and then gets an immediate extra save for "open-ended" contracts. But if you're having to argue this hard with your DM, you've already lost, because brow-beating a DM into giving you your way leads to angry DMs, rocs falling, and ... well, you know the rest.

I mean, have you ever had a DM who wouldn't say, "Okay, but I don't care what the RAW say; I'm running it my way," if they honestly disliked the RAW?

You're absolutely right. Why interviews are important. I explain my intended actions for the game, DM raises an objection, I use quotes to prove him wrong, and then he either says ok or I don't like that so I'm gonna house rule and we either play together or I walk away to find a better fit instead of springing these quotes mid-campaign and then getting into a fight.

I did however actually see a DM get brow-beaten like this by his friend though on a different subject matter so it's not an impossibility.


I appreciate that this is a thorn in your side, but frankly this feels more appropriate for a blog post or the like. It's a declaration, rather than a topic of discussion, and that's why you'll get pushback at least as often as (if not more than) support. It won't help that anyone who agrees with you may feel reluctant to say so because they don't want to feel like they are just a means to an end, e.g. their words are just ammunition for your bouts with DMs who disagree with you over this spell.

I honestly posted this thread just so I can google it. Being able to google all my work has been extremely convenient, and I thought other people could benefit from my list. I remember arguing very heavily about this subject with some of the people in this forum when i first started playing d&d so I figured if they had a single post with all the official examples that proved them wrong it could stop some heated arguments in its tracks.

[magicalmagicman]

Two problems with this argument:
1) This means ALL spells are for PCs and not NPCs because there are no spells in the DMG, so therefore NPCs should not cast any spells because "spells are made for player use". This also applies to all monsters in the MMs.
2) Planar Binding has no legal creatures to call, because they are all in the MM, which is for DMs, not the players and thus PCs cannot call them.

edit: Also class, skill, feat, equipment, and combat rules are all for PCs and not NPCs. This will prove to be very problematic for you when NPCs have to use entirely custom rules.
edit 2: And then you have the Exp, magic items, prestige classes, flight rules, environment rules and all sorts of other stuff in the DMG is for NPCs and not players.

I stand corrected. I will amend my statement.

"The spell is in the Player's Handbook. It's meant to be used by players. The quotes RoboEmperor provided merely show how the spell is supposed to work because the spell description wasn't as clear as it should be."

[ericgrau]

shove this post in his face and tell him he is wrong.
You shouldn't do this to your DM regardless.

The text also talks about refusing service, escaping, or else promising service in exchange for freedom. Also "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. "

I write this more for the sake of other readers than the O.P., who seems to have taken an adversarial stance. The reality is there are two sides, and shoving 1 side down our throats or the DM's throat won't make me believe or even pay attention. Consider this a pre-emptive "Yeah no" to arguments that fail to address the entire text rather than only parts of it.

[Particle_Man]

Wouldn't Summon Monster X be a better argument for slavery? The critters you summon have to do what you tell them and you don't even have to pay them anything. Admittedly, it is a very short duration spell, so does that make it different?

Contrariwise, Create Astral Construct doesn't have that problem because the creature is mindless. Presumably Animate Dead is also not slavery (for the lesser, mindless undead) for similar reasons.

[ExLibrisMortis]

For what it's worth, I generally agree that planar binding et al. constitute some form of slavery, in the modern sense, as it involves labour negotiated from an unequal bargaining position, performed under threats of violence including mind control (which is admittedly not too well-covered by real-world law, but let's assume it would be a form of violence, too), and terrible health & safety on the job. I also think that your quotes make it clear that the writers assumed/intended that planar binding can be used to coerce outsiders and elementals, and that the fluff explanation of "Charisma check as negotiation" is not accurate--it is a struggle for mental dominance with no room for Diplomatic niceties or even Intimidating stares.

In other words, it's pretty RAW and RAI slavery, in the modern sense. D&D morality being what it is, it's not [evil] (unless cast on an [evil] creature), but it is everything nasty short of that.


@Particle_Man: Summoning spells don't [call] a specific creature. They [summon] the Platonic form of a creature and give it temporary form with magic, but it's not actually an individual that goes back to its family after the summoning ends.

[ericgrau]

@^ It is a form of coercion ya, exchanging service to take away something you forced upon the creature.

[RoboEmperor]

You shouldn't do this to your DM regardless.

The text also talks about refusing service, escaping, or else promising service in exchange for freedom. Also "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. "

I write this more for the sake of other readers than the O.P., who seems to have taken an adversarial stance. The reality is there are two sides, and shoving 1 side down our throats or the DM's throat won't make me believe or even pay attention. Consider this a pre-emptive "Yeah no" to arguments that fail to address the entire text rather than only parts of it.

It's not two sides it's two parts and the problem is that some DMs claim that one part is the only part.

I'm gonna edit out that line you quoted since it seems to be the focus of most readers here instead of an ignorable poke.


@Particle_Man: Summoning spells don't [call] a specific creature. They [summon] the Platonic form of a creature and give it temporary form with magic, but it's not actually an individual that goes back to its family after the summoning ends.

Actually you're wrong here. Summon spells actually do bring in a real creature and when they die they reform 24 hours later. Even FCI says demons summon real demons and are loathe to do so since it puts them in debt, and the reason they can summon other demons is because they formed pacts, and the reason some demons only have a %chance at summoning is because those demons can refuse the call for help.

[Psyren]

The spell is in the Player's Handbook. It's meant to be used by players not NPCs. The quotes RoboEmperor provided merely show how the spell is supposed to work because the spell description wasn't as clear as it should be.

I'm not disputing that the spell is for players. I'm disputing that every single use we see of it from an NPC is for the players.

It's like how in several sourcebooks you see some lich or other villain used a Wish to do something that is clearly outside the safe bounds. When your PC tries it, expecting the exact same result regardless of extenuating circumstances isn't really reasonable.

[ezekielraiden]

I honestly posted this thread just so I can google it. Being able to google all my work has been extremely convenient, and I thought other people could benefit from my list. I remember arguing very heavily about this subject with some of the people in this forum when i first started playing d&d so I figured if they had a single post with all the official examples that proved them wrong it could stop some heated arguments in its tracks.

While your first reason is fine (makes for easy lookup), the bolded part is a fundamental misunderstanding of how people argue. If it's a (implicitly formal) debate, this is fair-ish. But when you're trying to convince someone, informally, trying to change minds, this will fall short. People will get defensive, will break formal rules of debate (e.g. moving goalposts, redefining the question, asserting that evidence isn't applicable, etc.) You don't win people over by beating them with facts until they surrender; at best all you've got is a conversion under duress, and at worst you've actively made an enemy of your position.

You don't convince by proving someone wrong. You convince by showing them a better way to be right. The difference may seem subtle or semantic, but I assure you it matters a lot.

[flappeercraft]

You don't convince by proving someone wrong. You convince by showing them a better way to be right. The difference may seem subtle or semantic, but I assure you it matters a lot.


This is incredibly quotable and I think many people need to see this. May I quote to spread it?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Actually you're wrong here. Summon spells actually do bring in a real creature and when they die they reform 24 hours later. Even FCI says demons summon real demons and are loathe to do so since it puts them in debt, and the reason they can summon other demons is because they formed pacts, and the reason some demons only have a %chance at summoning is because those demons can refuse the call for help.
Ah yeah, that's Afrocanon I was thinking of (I think, it might just've been mentioned on one of his threads, it's been a while). As I recall, FCI&II are on his list of "books not liked" because they contain a lot of material that randomly contradicts earlier Planescape/2e/3e fluff. Still, can't argue for the purposes of 3.5 RAW.

[Deadline]

OP's textual support is attempting to show at least two things regarding Planar Binding:
(1) You don't need enticements or rewards to compel the creature to do your bidding. Freedom can be its own reward.
(2) General servitude for [CL] days is text supported.

I believe (1) is patently obvious from the text of the spell itself and does not require supplementary support - though OP's former GM might prefer to believe otherwise. The spell description explicitly states that enticements and the terms of service merely modify the oppose charisma check, and even then within explicit limits.

(2) is fine as long as you go full lawyer about the phrasing of the servitude, and you stick to no longer than [CL] number of days of service. Elemental item binding in one campaign setting and one NPC group bending the rules are not generally applicable guides to indefinite binding.

That said I don't think OP should be all that surprised that a GM would look for rules-based ways to tone down one of the most powerful spells in the game, and abusing Planar Binding in an actual table setting is just asking for trouble (in most cases).

#1 is plainly evident in the spell description (not sure why folks think it is ambiguous). If you offer enticements or rewards, they can get you bonuses on the Charisma check to compel service, and from an RP perspective can certainly make the creature less likely to seek revenge.

#2 is also clearly spelled out in the spell description. It's the general "indefinite servitude" arrangement I'd argue against. That isn't supported in the spell, and even the OP's quote includes an important (maybe just to me) distinction that the mentioned servitude beyond CL days "required careful negotiation". That's not a blanket "all PB spells can be made into 500 years of general servitude because of this one NPC example!" Well, it's not that without an edited reading that casually disregards part of the text. Also, as you pointed out, there are several "long term binding" spells and effects that purpose built for such an effect.

With regards to RoboEmperor's #3, as long as you keep failing your Charisma check and not rolling a 1, the bound creature can absolutely wait out the clock. It's just highly unlikely that the clock will run out before you succeed on a Charisma check (potentially trivial with enough debuffs piled on the creature), or blow it with a natural 1.

Also, not gonna lie, this gave me a good laugh:


Eternal Bondage and Servitude is NOT an unreasonable command.

Edit - I have to agree with flappeercraft, this is an excellent bit of advice:


You don't convince by proving someone wrong. You convince by showing them a better way to be right. The difference may seem subtle or semantic, but I assure you it matters a lot.

[Arbane]

More gasoline on the fire: Is enslaving evil Outsiders a bad thing? If they're running your errands, they're not starting cults or eating babies or whatever they do on their own time.

And then there's Tales of Wyre, where the heroes rather unsportingly summoned a Duke of Hell (it was an epic level game), and executed him on the spot while he was stuck in the magic circle.

[Deadline]

More gasoline on the fire: Is enslaving evil Outsiders a bad thing? If they're running your errands, they're not starting cults or eating babies or whatever they do on their own time.

Well, it's certainly an evil act, as the spell gains the [Evil] descriptor, and casting [Evil] spells is an evil act.


And then there's Tales of Wyre, where the heroes rather unsportingly summoned a Duke of Hell (it was an epic level game), and executed him on the spot while he was stuck in the magic circle.

Tales of Wyre is an awesome example of how PB should be used. Shomei the Bargainer, and Mostin the Metagnostic use it to great effect, without it being a simple "serve me forever, slave!" type of spell.

[RoboEmperor]

#1 is plainly evident in the spell description (not sure why folks think it is ambiguous). If you offer enticements or rewards, they can get you bonuses on the Charisma check to compel service, and from an RP perspective can certainly make the creature less likely to seek revenge.

The folks I talked to claimed "free service is an unreasonable command" and therefore rewards are mandatory. Clearly against someone who doesn't have a maddening bias against the spell everything is unambiguous and requires no proof.


#2 is also clearly spelled out in the spell description. It's the general "indefinite servitude" arrangement I'd argue against. That isn't supported in the spell, and even the OP's quote includes an important (maybe just to me) distinction that the mentioned servitude beyond CL days "required careful negotiation". That's not a blanket "all PB spells can be made into 500 years of general servitude because of this one NPC example!" Well, it's not that without an edited reading that casually disregards part of the text. Also, as you pointed out, there are several "long term binding" spells and effects that purpose built for such an effect.

Again the folks I talked to say "clean my toilet is a non-open ended task. Guard this place for 10 days is an open-ended task". To you it's clear but to them it's not.

My goal wasn't indefinite servitude as you and Psyren thought.


With regards to RoboEmperor's #3, as long as you keep failing your Charisma check and not rolling a 1, the bound creature can absolutely wait out the clock. It's just highly unlikely that the clock will run out before you succeed on a Charisma check (potentially trivial with enough debuffs piled on the creature), or blow it with a natural 1.

That's not what I was saying. The folks I talked to say "They know the magic circle can only last 15 days so they're gonna block their ears and not give you a charisma check, ever, and then kill you after the duration ends."

In my case I use Surge of Fortune for a natural 20 so planar binding "negotiations" end within 1 round of binding.


Also, not gonna lie, this gave me a good laugh:

It's not my fault WotC wanted sentient elementals to accept bondage for eternity.


Edit - I have to agree with flappeercraft, this is an excellent bit of advice:

His advice is all well and good in theory but in practice it doesn't work. I dare you to try and convince Fizban to let his players bind powerful minions for free because WotC wanted players to be able to do so. Someone who hates spellcasters having the ability to bind monsters that are stronger than summon monster's monsters for free is never gonna change his mind. At least with the these quotes you avoid an argument and just go your separate ways while curing a DM's delusion along the way.


More gasoline on the fire: Is enslaving evil Outsiders a bad thing? If they're running your errands, they're not starting cults or eating babies or whatever they do on their own time.

And then there's Tales of Wyre, where the heroes rather unsportingly summoned a Duke of Hell (it was an epic level game), and executed him on the spot while he was stuck in the magic circle.

Is raping a rapist a bad thing? The answer is yes, so it is yes here as well. If you enslave them for good then you're neutral at best.

[ezekielraiden]

This is incredibly quotable and I think many people need to see this. May I quote to spread it?

Feel free. Give my name as Ezekiel or Zeke when you do (though the username is fine as part of a quite back to the post).

[Deadline]

The folks I talked to claimed "free service is an unreasonable command" and therefore rewards are mandatory. Clearly against someone who doesn't have a maddening bias against the spell everything is unambiguous and requires no proof.

It's possible they were conflating it with Planar Ally. Alternatively, assuming that you can freely PB without consequence seems to be counter to the spell. So while you won't have to pay to get a "free" slave with the spell, there are longer-term implications that the spell leaves to the DM to interpret. So perhaps that is the "cost" they may have been considering?

Your recommendation of ironing out problem spells like this one and your intents for the game before hand is solidly good advice. All gaming groups should have a "session 0" or "producer's meeting" or "interviews" to get worldbuilding and problematic rules interps out of the way in advance. Just make sure it isn't an excuse for you to browbeat your DM and nurse a pet grudge.


Again the folks I talked to say "clean my toilet is a non-open ended task. Guard this place for 10 days is an open-ended task". To you it's clear but to them it's not.

As per the spell, tasks that a creature cannot complete under their own power last for your CL in days, with the possibility of longer terms for specific bargained arrangements (which seems firmly in DM interpretation territory). I think that's probably going to be where you and I would disagree. I suspect you'd try and claim that a CL 10 caster could easily get a PB creature to "Guard this place for a year" with a single casting and no bargained arrangement. Please, correct me if I'm wrong on that.


My goal wasn't indefinite servitude as you and Psyren thought.

I appear to have misinterpreted your opening post, where you seemed to be arguing for exactly that. It's still unclear to me, but if you are saying that you don't think that's a viable use of the spell, my bad.


That's not what I was saying. The folks I talked to say "They know the magic circle can only last 15 days so they're gonna block their ears and not give you a charisma check, ever, and then kill you after the duration ends."

Well, no, it's clearly spelled out in the spell description that you get one chance per 24 hour period to try and compel them into service.


It's not my fault WotC wanted sentient elementals to accept bondage for eternity.

I admit that my Eberron lore isn't entirely up to snuff, but I doubt the veracity of that statement (on multiple levels). Also, while Planar Binding may be the spell that is used in the manufacture of Elemental Airships (the Lightning Rail uses them too, right?), the more permanent nature of the magic seems to be tied to the item creation rules rather than straight PB. So trying to claim that it somehow applies in the general sense to PB would be problematic.


His advice is all well and good in theory but in practice it doesn't work.

Not only have I seen it work in practice, it is one of the only things I've found effective in the long-term. I've seen the method you espouse not only fail to provide results (relatively consistently, in fact), it actively makes the discussion it's used in worse. ezekielraiden's advice is sound, and I've seen it work quite often.

That said, if you believe there is one "sure-fire" method that will always work to convince another person, I have disappointing news for you.

[ezekielraiden]

His advice is all well and good in theory but in practice it doesn't work. I dare you to try and convince Fizban to let his players bind powerful minions for free because WotC wanted players to be able to do so. Someone who hates spellcasters having the ability to bind monsters that are stronger than summon monster's monsters for free is never gonna change his mind. At least with the these quotes you avoid an argument and just go your separate ways while curing a DM's delusion along the way.

Whether it is possible to show someone a better way to be right is outside the purview of my advice. As you say, some people simply will not change no matter what you do, in which case it seems strange to me that you conclude "therefore I should express myself with hostility and aggression, and nigh on guarantee an angry separation." I don't really see your information, no matter how complete and well-cited, "dispelling" any notions of this DM, since their behavior will remain unchanged. (Further, as we have seen already in this thread, there are perfectly rational, if debatable, grounds for asserting that the evidence doesn't apply, exactly as I said earlier.)

From what you've said here, it sounds like you really have no hope or prediction of convincing, so that can be set aside. If all you care about is "proof" that someone is inaccurately reading a rule or the like, there's no convincing involved, just an expression of difference of interpretation and, if that difference is unbridgeable, separation. No need for hostility or browbeating. Perhaps I am making an inappropriate assumption, but I do assume that courtesy is preferable to hostility in effectively all situations. Why make enemies without need?


Is raping a rapist a bad thing? The answer is yes, so it is yes here as well. If you enslave them for good then you're neutral at best.

Is kidnapping a kidnapper a bad thing? According to most laws I know, it is not, as long as official law enforcement gets involved because a law was broken ("citizen's arrest" is a thing, and that's basically legally-justified kidnapping.) Further, is prison labor a bad thing? Properly speaking this can be seen as a form of slavery, but many US states make use of it and it can even be beneficial (e.g. teaching trade skills to inmates so they can get jobs when they get out, giving them activity instead of mindless inactivity, etc.) The analogy is too laser-focused to hold, so it surely requires further analysis before I can agree; I need to see *why* these two crimes are more closely linked than others, and why I shouldn't draw an analogy to prisoner labor.

[RoboEmperor]

Whether it is possible to show someone a better way to be right is outside the purview of my advice. As you say, some people simply will not change no matter what you do, in which case it seems strange to me that you conclude "therefore I should express myself with hostility and aggression, and nigh on guarantee an angry separation." I don't really see your information, no matter how complete and well-cited, "dispelling" any notions of this DM, since their behavior will remain unchanged. (Further, as we have seen already in this thread, there are perfectly rational, if debatable, grounds for asserting that the evidence doesn't apply, exactly as I said earlier.)

From what you've said here, it sounds like you really have no hope or prediction of convincing, so that can be set aside. If all you care about is "proof" that someone is inaccurately reading a rule or the like, there's no convincing involved, just an expression of difference of interpretation and, if that difference is unbridgeable, separation. No need for hostility or browbeating. Perhaps I am making an inappropriate assumption, but I do assume that courtesy is preferable to hostility in effectively all situations. Why make enemies without need?

You assume we weren't enemies at this point. Like I said in earlier posts if a disagreement happens during the interview process I just say we're not a good fit and leave, no hostility, but if a DM pulls this mid-campaign and destroys my entire reason for playing the game you bet I'm gonna be hostile. Before I hunted down these quotes I had a DM change his mind and when I finally hunted down the quotes and proved him wrong he started getting angry and did exactly what the other people on this thread have said which was "I don't give a damn about the rules" at which point we are enemies and I will leave. I have no idea what instigated the change of heart especially since I DISCLOSED EVERYTHING I WAS GONNA DO BEFORE THE GAME BEGAN and he gave the OK.


Is kidnapping a kidnapper a bad thing? According to most laws I know, it is not, as long as official law enforcement gets involved because a law was broken ("citizen's arrest" is a thing, and that's basically legally-justified kidnapping.) Further, is prison labor a bad thing? Properly speaking this can be seen as a form of slavery, but many US states make use of it and it can even be beneficial (e.g. teaching trade skills to inmates so they can get jobs when they get out, giving them activity instead of mindless inactivity, etc.) The analogy is too laser-focused to hold, so it surely requires further analysis before I can agree; I need to see *why* these two crimes are more closely linked than others, and why I shouldn't draw an analogy to prisoner labor.

Prison labor is a bad thing. The goal of civilized prisons is to rehabilitate its residents, not punish. The goal of uncivilized prisons is to punish. It depends on your crime but in civilized prisons prisoners have access to libraries, education, exercise, therapy, etc. and people genuinely try to reform you into a decent human being while prisons in uncivilized countries is slave labor, rape, corpses being fed to dogs, etc. and have no intention of helping you. Is this a good thing?

If forced labor is bad for good people forced labor is bad for bad people. If someone kidnaps you and tortures you, is it a good thing if you kidnap him and torture him back? Or is it a good thing to rehabilitate him (assuming you have the ability to rehabilitate him) and forgive him afterwards for the crimes he committed against you?

Jews being worked in metalworking shops during Hitler's reign was prison labor. If the Jews started working the Nazis to death and killed them at their leisure and entertainment is that a good thing?

A lot of people claim Sanctified the Wicked is an evil spell but I disagree. It gives a sociopathic psychopath the ability to feel empathy, gives it a conscience, gives it the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, and gives it the ability to realize all the horrors it caused, and as a result voluntarily rehabilitates over the course of a year and atones, yet other people say this is no different than mindrape. Well the fact is free-will is an illusion, and 100% of your actions are determined by your personality and environment, so if a spell changes your personality to good you end up being good. Whether this is mindrape level evil or not, whatever. Just note that you are literally saving him from an eternity in the hells or abyss with this "mindrape".

In any case enslaving other creatures is always bad, whether the victim deserves it or not just like how murder and execution is worse than prison and rehabilitation.

Enslaving Fiends for good doesn't mean you're evil, because you're trying to do good, but you are committing very evil acts regularly so you're not good.

[Goaty14]

Enslaving Fiends for good doesn't mean you're evil, because you're trying to do good, but you are committing very evil acts regularly so you're not good.

Counterpoint: The Malconvoker. According to RAW, if you go read a lil non-magical book and gain a level in a certain PrC, then binding (read: "enslaving") evil outsiders and telling them to go slay other evil does not make you evil. Thus, you're not entirely correct here.

I'd argue that doing evil stuff (i.e Genocide, Mass Slavery) to evil outsiders is not an evil act because moral codes don't apply to beings of "evil incarnate". All of your previous examples deal with real-world people or creatures that aren't irredeemably evil.

[RoboEmperor]

Counterpoint: The Malconvoker. According to RAW, if you go read a lil non-magical book and gain a level in a certain PrC, then binding (read: "enslaving") evil outsiders and telling them to go slay other evil does not make you evil. Thus, you're not entirely correct here.

Malconvoker was not included in my quotes because that PrC is 100% consensual negotiations. The Malconvoker maybe lying through his teeth but still, it's trickery not slavery.

[Deophaun]

You can't enslave Outsiders, because Outsiders aren't people. Of course, neither are gnomes, but once I set them to work digging out the top layer of that was-at-the-time-dormant caldera under their nest, you wouldn't believe how many would-be freedom fighters I had to explain that little concept to. And by "explain," I mean throw into the now-burning caldera that I'm building my obsidian fortress in. Really people. There are rats being mistreated in alleyways all across the kingdom and this is what you choose to sacrifice your lives for?

[Crake]

Nothing stops you from politely apologizing for the inconvenience of calling them, and the distrust of the trap, and attempting to negotiate a more convenient time for the Outsider to be called up to negotiate for something of mutual benefit. You don't have to do the opposed Charisma check to compel it to accept the bargain. You can use it as a glorified phone call to ask to negotiate for services rendered.

As with most things, it's how you use it that determines how it demonstrates your alignment.

This has pretty much been the case for planar binding in 99% of my games. Usually, if summoning a devil, they planar bind an imp, ask for a name, use sending to contact that person to set up a time, then planar bind to meet, but the same works for any kind of outsider, coure for eladrin, musteval for guardinials, quasits for demons, lantern archons for archons, and so on so on.

Very rarely is it used in my games as a method of forcing slavery, despite the fact that we all agree it CAN, it's just too dangerous. Because, sure, maybe you can keep binding the same outsider over and over, but that outsider doesn't exist in a vaccuum, they have friends AND enemies looking for them, and if you're housing them, well, expect both to come looking for you.

[RoboEmperor]

Very rarely is it used in my games as a method of forcing slavery, despite the fact that we all agree it CAN, it's just too dangerous. Because, sure, maybe you can keep binding the same outsider over and over, but that outsider doesn't exist in a vaccuum, they have friends AND enemies looking for them, and if you're housing them, well, expect both to come looking for you.

Fiends have no allies who will help them in their time of need. Angels yes but not fiends, both Demon and Devil, because even Pit Fiends and Balors are expendable with millions of underlings looking to usurp their position.

[Psyren]

More gasoline on the fire: Is enslaving evil Outsiders a bad thing? If they're running your errands, they're not starting cults or eating babies or whatever they do on their own time.

For the most part, they wouldn't be doing that stuff anyway - they can't just come over whenever they feel like it, otherwise the material would be drowning in infinite demons already and mortal life would've been extinguished ages ago. But conversely, nearly every demon that has gone on a tear through the Material and needed to be put down by adventurers was there because some hapless mage was sure that their binding was foolproof and routine, right up until their heads got torn off their shoulders.

[Keltest]

Fiends have no allies who will help them in their time of need. Angels yes but not fiends, both Demon and Devil, because even Pit Fiends and Balors are expendable with millions of underlings looking to usurp their position.

There are plenty of denizens of the lower planes who are willing to fight to protect the status quo if they benefit from it.

[RoboEmperor]

There are plenty of denizens of the lower planes who are willing to fight to protect the status quo if they benefit from it.

Do you have an example? From what I read a dead pit fiend or balor makes a literal 0 difference in baator or the abyss. I mean look at the bloodwar and the casualties caused by Orcus's undead horde against other Demons. The death count is incredibly high and none of that matters so absolutely no demon would give a damn if a marilith or a balor went AWOL. Demons also serve you solely so they can kill stuff in the material realm, devils don't mind being pawns because they'll win in the long term and damn your soul to baator and if they don't the devil is blamed for their weakness and demoted rather than the spellcaster being hunted. In fact the spellcaster would most likely be unharmed as he is a known devil trafficker and therefore an opportunity to spread evil.

In no scenario do I see a rescue team coming for either fiend race.

[ElFi]

More gasoline on the fire: Is enslaving evil Outsiders a bad thing? If they're running your errands, they're not starting cults or eating babies or whatever they do on their own time.

And then there's Tales of Wyre, where the heroes rather unsportingly summoned a Duke of Hell (it was an epic level game), and executed him on the spot while he was stuck in the magic circle.

Planescape: Torment leans towards "yes" regarding your first question, in my experience. There's a demon in that setting bound by a fallen angel to perform good acts until his contract runs out. You can exploit the contract's wording to get him to do all sorts of stuff for you, but doing so is considered an Evil act (regardless of how you benefit from ordering him around) because you're basically taking advantage of a helpless person's kindness. Violating a creature's free will to benefit yourself regardless of said creature's personal moral standing seems to be a Bad Thing in that case, it seems.

And on the other hand, there's the Order of the Stick, which seems to hold that semi-coercing (Belkar) or mind controlling (Yokyok) evil beings into performing good acts, safety of life and limb be damned, is A-Okay for good guys to do as long as it's for a good cause. Mr. Burlew is by no means an absolute authority on the nature of alignment in D&D settings, but I tend to trust his judgement more often than not, though I find the Dominated Kobold subplot to be more tasteless than funny more often than not (a rarity in the comic for me).

[ezekielraiden]

Planescape: Torment leans towards "yes" regarding your first question, in my experience. There's a demon in that setting bound by a fallen angel to perform good acts until his contract runs out. You can exploit the contract's wording to get him to do all sorts of stuff for you, but doing so is considered an Evil act (regardless of how you benefit from ordering him around) because you're basically taking advantage of a helpless person's kindness. Violating a creature's free will to benefit yourself regardless of said creature's personal moral standing seems to be a Bad Thing in that case, it seems.

While I agree with your PS:T statement as given...YOU, The Nameless One, didn't make the contract, so it doesn't explicitly say that the act itself is evil. It *does* show that taking advantage of someone who can't stop you is evil, but that's not strictly the same thing. We don't know at what point in Trias' life the contract was made, so we can't even necessarily conclude that it's evil because Trias is evil.

That said, I'm certainly sympathetic to the notion. I prefer to uphold a pretty high standard of conduct, so hinky shenanigans are already suspect to me. I guess what I'd say is, I *might* be convinced that it was okay in very unusual circumstances, but as a rule of thumb, anything that enforces choices on another being is Not Good. E.g. if a forced Planar Binding were the only way to save an innocent child's life? A brief, focused effort would be tolerable but uncomfortable. Certainly not okay with purely self-beneficial uses (though just because it *can* benefit you doesn't necessarily mean that's the intent, which matters.)

[Deadline]

Fiends have no allies who will help them in their time of need. Angels yes but not fiends, both Demon and Devil, because even Pit Fiends and Balors are expendable with millions of underlings looking to usurp their position.

Where are you getting this from? That seems counter to how the Hells work, and despite their chaotic nature, even demons band together for safety and mutual survival. It's a pretty safe bet that any given fiend is beholden to, allies with, the property of, or valuable to another fiend or outsider. Assuming that no one will miss a fiend, especially a powerful one, is ... not in line with any of the setting material I've seen. Is there a setting where this is seen to be common?

[RoboEmperor]

Where are you getting this from? That seems counter to how the Hells work, and despite their chaotic nature, even demons band together for safety and mutual survival. It's a pretty safe bet that any given fiend is beholden to, allies with, the property of, or valuable to another fiend or outsider. Assuming that no one will miss a fiend, especially a powerful one, is ... not in line with any of the setting material I've seen. Is there a setting where this is seen to be common?

Fiendish Codex II.


Near the top of the hierarchy are the greater devils, which occupy positions of authority in the infernal power structure. The most powerful of the greater devils are the pit fi ends, which manage diabolical forces in every enterprise from the Blood War to the corruption of entire nations. Just below the nine Lords of Hell are a handful of unique devils known as dukes. Whether presently scheming in this direction or not, all dukes of Hell dream of the day when they can displace one of the current Lords of Hell and rule an entire layer.
While entertaining forbidden thoughts of ultimate power, dukes and pit fiends must in turn look out for their own positions. Other greater devils are always scheming to advance through the hierarchy, and the elevation of a new pit fiend is usually accompanied by the demotion of its disfavored counterpart. Furthermore, while the most powerful devils have frequent chances to prove themselves and continue their upward ascent, they are also exposed to the direct scrutiny of their lords. Punishment for failure is invariably swift and terrible, so greater devils live in constant terror of summary demotion. They take their fears out on their inferiors, who in turn bully those below them, and so on. This chain of merciless subordination continues all the way down to the pathetic, mindless lemures, which have no inferiors to lash out at.
...
Most demotions are punishments for failure. No meritocracy is more demanding or ruthless than Baator. Those who fail to perform soon find themselves trapped in the forms of wretched nupperibos and assigned to the most degrading duties available. (The exact nature of those tasks is best left to the imagination.)
...
However, even devils that perform their duties in exemplary fashion and obey all the rules can still be unfairly demoted. Political demotions occur when a devil’s superiors fear its ascent. Thus, the secret to successful advancement lies in the careful fl attery and cultivation of one’s superiors. A clever devil reveals the true extent of its ambition only after its knife, metaphorical or literal, has been plunged between its former patron’s vertebrae.


Does this strike you as "Lets form an alliance so we can both survive since this is the smart thing to do" or "At the first opportunity I'm gonna sabotage/frame/blame everyone around me even if they're innocent just so I can get them demoted and advance the hierarchy"?

It's not just that passage, it's the whole tone of that book.

So if a Pit Fiend finds himself bound to a mortal, are his fellow peers and subordinates going to come to his aid to gain his favor OR claim that the Pit Fiend is an incompetent **** that got enslaved by a mortal and petition the Archdevil that he deserves demotion?

It's one of the reasons it's better to be good than evil. No one will help you if you're evil. No one. You are alone.

[Nifft]

Well, yeah. That’s the entire point of Planar Binding. You get a free slave. I just want to enjoy the delightful irony of the phrase "a free slave".

If you were seen in the market holding up a sign which read "FREE SLAVES", you'd probably see at least two very different responses.


Fiendish Codex II.

Does this strike you as "Lets form an alliance so we can both survive since this is the smart thing to do" or "At the first opportunity I'm gonna sabotage/frame/blame everyone around me even if they're innocent just so I can get them demoted and advance the hierarchy"?

It's not just that passage, it's the whole tone of that book.

How can you betray someone if you're never allies?

You're thinking is far too shallow. Fiends ally all the time. They keep their plan-to-betray friends close, and their plan-to-murder enemies closer.

They all need allies because if they're ever perceived as being alone, they immediately become a target for other fiends who have (temporary) allies. There's power in numbers, and fiends know a thing or two about using power -- and moreover, they earnestly and unabashedly like power.

[RoboEmperor]

I just want to enjoy the delightful irony of the phrase "a free slave".

If you were seen in the market holding up a sign which read "FREE SLAVES", you'd probably see at least two very different responses.



How can you betray someone if you're never allies?

You're thinking is far too shallow. Fiends ally all the time. They keep their plan-to-betray friends close, and their plan-to-murder enemies closer.

They all need allies because if they're ever perceived as being alone, they immediately become a target for other fiends who have (temporary) allies. There's power in numbers, and fiends know a thing or two about using power -- and moreover, they earnestly and unabashedly like power.

I never said they don't ally. I said no one will help them. Including their allies. So the Pit Fiend bound to a mortal will be on the receiving end of "plan-to-betray friends" and "plan-to-murder enemies" of every single devil that knows his name.

edit: I did use the word alliance, but I didn't mean it as an alliance in name only.

[Saintheart]

More gasoline on the fire: Is enslaving evil Outsiders a bad thing?

Chaotic Good says yes, Lawful Good says no provided due process was followed, Neutral Good says not as long as they serve a purpose in doing so.

[Florian]

Ah, Planar Binding....

"Re: Planar Binding is SLAVERY"

Nope. PB is exactly what is says on the tin, or rather, in the spell description: It´s a setup that allows a PC to summon and haggle with an NPC. Unlike Planar Ally, that includes a "force" and a "bribe" option, with the mechanical representation of a CHA check or dishing out the gp.

The actual funny thing is, the spell is both wholly self-contained and absolutely unusable by RAW, because you always need an NPC for it, along with the whole parameters what "acceptable" and all the related stuff would mean for exactly that NPC, what forms the bribes would take and so on.

What's funny, tho, is that the mechanics of the spell are so wonky. Basically, if you read at is "one ritual, packaged into one spell" and treat it as exactly that "one spell", the implication this has on the interaction with other spells is quite astonishing.

[Crake]

If you bind a fiend, 9/10 you've just stolen someone's property or underling. Even a pit fiend has a master, and when that pit fiend suddenly goes missing, people are gonna start asking questions. They don't just carry on like he never existed, even if some of them would certainly like to TRY and make that happen. The problem isnt with his allies at his immediate level, it's with the people ABOVE him, who have delegated tasks to him, which he is now currently not performing. And they're angry that he's not performing them. Angry at the pit fiend, but also angry at YOU. Devils especially also keep a lot of secrets, if someone goes missing but isn't confirmed dead, then people are going to start looking for them even if it's just to clean up a loose end, which very well may lead them to you, who now quite possibly knows some secrets, and must also be cleaned up.

[Keltest]

I never said they don't ally. I said no one will help them. Including their allies. So the Pit Fiend bound to a mortal will be on the receiving end of "plan-to-betray friends" and "plan-to-murder enemies" of every single devil that knows his name.

edit: I did use the word alliance, but I didn't mean it as an alliance in name only.

All it takes to motivate a fiend to help is to see a rival benefit more than he does from the absence of the bigger fiend. If middle management (who hates you) suddenly replaces upper management (who doesn't hate you as much), that's bad for you personally. On top of there being potential rewards if you can successfully free this guy.

[Selion]

Good boys don't enforce the magic circle with dimensional anchor

[Braininthejar2]

Of course it is. That's why they get to rip out your spleen if you do it wrong.

[Mordaedil]

Have any of you actually done the whole binding a demon and demand a request before in game? What is your standard procedure to make sure it doesn't go awry, besides the standard magic circle against evil, dimension anchor and planar binding setup?

Also, does this mean Planar Ally is different? And should sorcerers rather learn that spell instead of Binding to be morally good?

[Goaty14]

Have any of you actually done the whole binding a demon and demand a request before in game? What is your standard procedure to make sure it doesn't go awry, besides the standard magic circle against evil, dimension anchor and planar binding setup?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?554435-Sorcerer-Master-of-Animate-Objects-and-Planar-Binding

[Crake]

Have any of you actually done the whole binding a demon and demand a request before in game? What is your standard procedure to make sure it doesn't go awry, besides the standard magic circle against evil, dimension anchor and planar binding setup?

Also, does this mean Planar Ally is different? And should sorcerers rather learn that spell instead of Binding to be morally good?

Planar ally is in the name: It's an ally. You don't even actually get to choose what your ally is, your deity does, and they send you one of their servants with the intention of going and helping you. It's quite different from planar binding, in that the arriving outsider comes of it's own accord (and thus there is no save involved), and is well aware of the fact that it's arriving to help. Planar binding on the other hand plucks a random being that you specify from anywhere in the cosmos. If you use it on an angel, that angel may well be in the midst of battle protecting innocent people, who you have now condemned to death, or likewise, if you use it on a fiend, they may well have been in the middle of a relaxing vacation and are now incredibly vexxed at being brought in to serve you for some petty request.

Keep in mind planar ally doens't always get you what you want, you may request a celestial pegasus, but instead get a movanic deva, while planar binding always gets you exactly what you want, provided such a creature exists and is not a unique being. Planar ally also costs xp, but generally comes with the idea that it's not going to screw you over (hence the name planar ally).

[Deophaun]

Violating a creature's free will to benefit yourself regardless of said creature's personal moral standing seems to be a Bad Thing in that case, it seems.
If that were true, much of the Enchantment school would have the [Evil] label.

[Selion]

Have any of you actually done the whole binding a demon and demand a request before in game? What is your standard procedure to make sure it doesn't go awry, besides the standard magic circle against evil, dimension anchor and planar binding setup?

Also, does this mean Planar Ally is different? And should sorcerers rather learn that spell instead of Binding to be morally good?

As a player just one time, i charmed an npc and offered him as sacrifice to a succubus. The request was just to investigate on an issue, the succubus failed to do it in an effective way because the area had magic protections. I dismissed her in a few days. The whole deal costed both of us a little effort, it seemed fair to me and i had no further consequences.
I planned to call for a strong devil to impregnate the daughter and only heir to the king, so that i would have brought an infernal heritage to the world, but i failed to kidnap her.

[Arbane]

If that were true, much of the Enchantment school would have the [Evil] label.

Logically, mind-control Enchantments should have the [Law] tag.
"Free will is a privilege, not a right." :smallamused:

[RoboEmperor]

If you bind a fiend, 9/10 you've just stolen someone's property or underling. Even a pit fiend has a master, and when that pit fiend suddenly goes missing, people are gonna start asking questions. They don't just carry on like he never existed, even if some of them would certainly like to TRY and make that happen. The problem isnt with his allies at his immediate level, it's with the people ABOVE him, who have delegated tasks to him, which he is now currently not performing. And they're angry that he's not performing them. Angry at the pit fiend, but also angry at YOU. Devils especially also keep a lot of secrets, if someone goes missing but isn't confirmed dead, then people are going to start looking for them even if it's just to clean up a loose end, which very well may lead them to you, who now quite possibly knows some secrets, and must also be cleaned up.

Read the passage I quoted. I believe it says the Fiends are more likely to blame the Pit Fiend for being weak enough that a mortal can bind him rather than blame the mortal who bound him and the pissed off higher level greater devil will unleash his rage on the Pit Fiend and demote him when he gets back.

If what you say is true that Devils send rescue teams then virtually all of d&d lore falls apart because we have unapproachable east and other supplements where Pit Fiends are called and forced to serve and if all of them end in the caller's death because an archdevil decides to help his pit fiend minion rather than replace him with a different devil then villains in d&d lose access to infernal minions.

I think WotC intentionally setup the lore so that the danger of binding Devils and Demons is either from them breaking free or them cleverly subverting your instructions and screwing you over, not a fiendish rescue squad because again, Villains won't be able to use infernal and abyssal minions to attack the PCs with.

If I may make an analogy, if a CEO's executive underling gets kidnapped and therefore not performing his very important job, the CEO in this case will get angry that his underling was stupid enough to get himself kidnapped and fire his ass if he doesn't make it back in time and get the job done because this is an EVIL CEO. A good CEO will get the police to find the executive and give him time off to recover from the ordeal.

Most DMs I play with however haven't read the Fiendish Codex, and DMs are allowed to change monster fluff like this, so all of this is moot. But in the WotC d&d setting binding fiends have a 0% chance of rescue teams.

Ruthlessly Brutal Meritocracies has no allies.


Have any of you actually done the whole binding a demon and demand a request before in game? What is your standard procedure to make sure it doesn't go awry, besides the standard magic circle against evil, dimension anchor and planar binding setup?

Also, does this mean Planar Ally is different? And should sorcerers rather learn that spell instead of Binding to be morally good?

Surge of Fortune is a natural 20 therefore you have a 0% chance of the outsider breaking free because it is literally impossible to roll a 1. If you have +1 more charisma modifier than the outsider then you have a literal 100% chance of success. If you re-bind the same outsider over and over there is a 0% chance of revenge.

Other people I know use the standard enervation spam to lower the outsider's charisma check because Surge of Fortune is Cleric Exclusive and it takes effort to get it on the wizard's list or get Planar Binding on the cleric's list, but if all you're going to be doing is Planar Binding then it's worth it because even a debuffed to hell outsider has a 5% chance of escaping because of that charisma check while Surge of Fortune can resolve negotiations in 1 round because you just roll the charisma check, no debuffing or negotiation.

[Keltest]

Read the passage I quoted. I believe it says the Fiends are more likely to blame the Pit Fiend for being weak enough that a mortal can bind him rather than blame the mortal who bound him and the pissed off higher level greater devil will unleash his rage on the Pit Fiend and demote him when he gets back.

If what you say is true that Devils send rescue teams then virtually all of d&d lore falls apart because we have unapproachable east and other supplements where Pit Fiends are called and forced to serve and if all of them end in the caller's death because an archdevil decides to help his pit fiend minion rather than replace him with a different devil then villains in d&d lose access to infernal minions.

I think WotC intentionally setup the lore so that the danger of binding Devils and Demons is either from them breaking free or them cleverly subverting your instructions and screwing you over, not a fiendish rescue squad because again, Villains won't be able to use infernal and abyssal minions to attack the PCs with.

If I may make an analogy, if a CEO's executive underling gets kidnapped and therefore not performing his very important job, the CEO in this case will get angry that his underling was stupid enough to get himself kidnapped and fire his ass if he doesn't make it back in time and get the job done because this is an EVIL CEO. A good CEO will get the police to find the executive and give him time off to recover from the ordeal.

Most DMs I play with however haven't read the Fiendish Codex, and DMs are allowed to change monster fluff like this, so all of this is moot. But in the WotC d&d setting binding fiends have a 0% chance of rescue teams.

Ruthlessly Brutal Meritocracies has no allies.There are plenty of other reasons besides friendship and loyalty that a fiend would be interested in rescuing another fiend. For example, with that specific fiend out of the way, perhaps a rival is positioned to ascend and take their place. Evil doesn't trust, but they aren't backstabbers to the point of self destruction, either.

Theres also the possibility that the particular fiend's boss is offended that a mere moral is daring to mess with his minions. In this case, the rescue isn't about the specific minion in question so much as dealing with the mortal that really needs to learn why you don't mess with fiends. And, of course, if he just lets mortals steal his minions like that, he looks weak for not being able to deal with these mortals better.

[RoboEmperor]

Theres also the possibility that the particular fiend's boss is offended that a mere moral is daring to mess with his minions. In this case, the rescue isn't about the specific minion in question so much as dealing with the mortal that really needs to learn why you don't mess with fiends. And, of course, if he just lets mortals steal his minions like that, he looks weak for not being able to deal with these mortals better.

I think Archdevils who can demote and promote on a whim would rather make an example out of the pit fiend for being too weak rather than stoop so low as to confront a mortal himself for stealing a weakling.

Devils also want mortals to mess with fiends. It's how they do business so doing anything that would discourage mortals from trafficking with fiends would also be against Devil's nature.

The occasional freak alliance that results in fiends helping each other is a special case not the norm. The norm is Devils capitalizing on every opportunity to get rid of other Devils instead of helping them.

Also I think Pit Fiends want to be called and bound. Pact Insidious implies that anyone who traffics with devils will always result in damnation because of the Devil's cunning and trickery so I would think Pit Fiends would take a Planar Binding as a 100 year challenge of slow damnation.


A Pact Insidious allows a gullible mortal to believe he can gain the benefi ts of a flirtation with evil without suffering its consequences. Thus, it exploits the eternal self-delusion of the lazy and greedy.

The tone here suggests they want mortals to planar bind devils.

[Deophaun]

My main uses of Planar Binding is as a necromancer to summon a Nightmare--which is slain and brought back as a skeleton for transport--and a Bar-lgura, which is also promptly slain and brought back as a corpse creature. Why bother with negotiations and charisma checks when you can just compel obedience through undeath?

The benefit of both is no one cares about either. Both Nightmares and Bar-lguras are loners, so there's not much risk of anyone coming after you for them.

Otherwise, going for an Ecalypse is also great. Just need to boost your Ride check for a permanent servant-mount. Again, why negotiate?

[RoboEmperor]

My main uses of Planar Binding is as a necromancer to summon a Nightmare--which is slain and brought back as a skeleton for transport--and a Bar-lgura, which is also promptly slain and brought back as a corpse creature. Why bother with negotiations and charisma checks when you can just compel obedience through undeath?

The benefit of both is no one cares about either. Both Nightmares and Bar-lguras are loners, so there's not much risk of anyone coming after you for them.

Otherwise, going for an Ecalypse is also great. Just need to boost your Ride check for a permanent servant-mount. Again, why negotiate?

If you want corpses I'd suggest you use Stone to Flesh to create a Balor corpse or Polymorph Any Object replicating Stone to Flesh to create a Prismatic Great Wyrm corpse.

[Deophaun]

If you want corpses I'd suggest you use Stone to Flesh to create a Balor corpse or Polymorph Any Object replicating Stone to Flesh to create a Prismatic Great Wyrm corpse.
Dread Necromancers (my chief go-to for necromancer builds) don't get stone to flesh. Also, there are some HD issues in trying to command a Balor corpse creature. Not insurmountable issues, but issues nonetheless. Plus, the Balor doesn't really bring much in the way of utility. The best it has is to summon a glabrezu, but then we're right back to negotiating for a wish, and you can't even kill and raise this one because it's just summoned, not called.

[Segev]

I thought outsiders didn't leave corpses and thus couldn't be made into undead.

Also, why a Nightmare skeleton rather than a normal horse's? It loses its flight, since it doesn't have wings, doesn't it?

[RoboEmperor]

I thought outsiders didn't leave corpses and thus couldn't be made into undead.

Also, why a Nightmare skeleton rather than a normal horse's? It loses its flight, since it doesn't have wings, doesn't it?

I have a quote for this


The topic of what happens to demons when they die is another cause of much debate. In general, however, both the Black Scrolls and the Demonomicon acknowledge the following basic concepts:
Outside the Abyss: If a demon is killed on another plane, its body eventually returns to the Abyss—unless trapped through magical means, such as a dimensional anchor spell. (See the Demonic Death Throes sidebar for more details on how demon bodies sometimes disappear.) No matter what happens to the demon’s body, if it is killed outside the Abyss, its “essence” falls back into the raw chaos of the Abyss, where it is then be reformed as a new demon
...
If a demon is killed while within the Abyss, it is permanently destroyed—both its body and its essence.
...
19 The demon falls to the ground, and its flesh rots
away in an instant, leaving behind a sickly odor.
The bones remain, but they will turn to dust at the
slightest pressure.
20 Nothing special. The demon expires as if it were a
normal, Material Plane creature.

[tyckspoon]

The tone here suggests they want mortals to planar bind devils.

Generally, yes - most devils and demons can't access the Prime Material on their own. Calling one in, even if it's nominally in service to the mortal caster, gives the lower planes a chance to directly influence the Prime Material. And that mortal caster who bound the demon has revealed themselves to both be powerful enough to call and bind a demon, and to be somebody who doesn't mind treating with Evil and using Evil means to secure their ends.. in other words, a potentially usable piece for the plans of the Abyss. Having access a mortal agent like that as well as having one of their own demons/devils/whatevers walking around the Prime Material for a while is well worth letting the mortal pretend to be in control for a while - there's always more fiends around, but most of them are stuck in the Hells or the Abyss.

(And depending on what fluff you run by just having the demon on the Prime Material is a win for the lower planes - calling it there makes the whole plane just that little more Evil and that little bit more susceptible to other acts coming from the Evil end.)

[OgresAreCute]

I have a quote for this

You're like the Batman of rule citations.

[Deophaun]

For what Robo missed:

Also, why a Nightmare skeleton rather than a normal horse's? It loses its flight, since it doesn't have wings, doesn't it?

Winged skeletons can’t use their wings to fly. If the base creature flew magically, so can the skeleton.

[blackwindbears]

The folks I talked to claimed "free service is an unreasonable command" and therefore rewards are mandatory. Clearly against someone who doesn't have a maddening bias against the spell everything is unambiguous and requires no proof.


I have to know, what do you consider to be an unreasonable command that would always be rejected. I can't think that the line was put in there if there were no unreasonable commands.

[RoboEmperor]

You're like the Batman of rule citations.

Only for rules regarding my builds, which is 99.9999% planar binding, fiends, and free minions.


I have to know, what do you consider to be an unreasonable command that would always be rejected. I can't think that the line was put in there if there were no unreasonable commands.

Kill yourself
Telling an Angel to murder an orphanage

Basically anything that will result in your death, or making you do something that you would rather die than do. Because that's really what's on the line here. If you don't come to an agreement the spellcaster is going to brutally murder you because you are absolutely helpless against Magic Circle.

Fiends can reform when dead, and other outsiders rather die than be enslaved to you for all eternity so Eternal Slavery is an unreasonable command for some outsiders, but not Elementals because we have direct RAW proof that they do in fact agree to an eternity in bondage. Not like this matters though since elementals have a terrible Strength-to-HD ratio.

Also official d&d dungeons like Age of Worms have insane Elementals because they were eternally enslaved in a shower room or something similar.

[blackwindbears]

Fiends have no allies who will help them in their time of need. Angels yes but not fiends, both Demon and Devil, because even Pit Fiends and Balors are expendable with millions of underlings looking to usurp their position.

This is definitely not RAW. Fiends may not have friends, but they very well might have allies, or at least someone may be upset that their direct underling was just stolen from them.

I mean given how upset you get with your DM if your pet disappears I don't understand why you consider it impossible that some devil's direct superior would get upset with some puny mortal for doing the same.

[Arbane]

Fiends can reform when dead, and other outsiders rather die than be enslaved to you for all eternity so Eternal Slavery is an unreasonable command for some outsiders, but not Elementals because we have direct RAW proof that they do in fact agree to an eternity in bondage. Not like this matters though since elementals have a terrible Strength-to-HD ratio.

Also official d&d dungeons like Age of Worms have insane Elementals because they were eternally enslaved in a shower room or something similar.

Dumb question: How do spellcasters keep neutral elementals locked up during 'negotiations'?

[RoboEmperor]

Dumb question: How do spellcasters keep neutral elementals locked up during 'negotiations'?

I have a few quotes for this


This spell has an alternative version that you may choose when casting it. A magic circle against evil can be focused inward rather than outward. 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. If a creature too large to fit into the spell’s area is the subject of the spell, the spell acts as a normal protection from evil spell for that creature only.

This spell functions like magic circle against evil, except that it is similar to protection from good instead of protection from evil, and it can imprison a nonevil called creature.

This spell functions like magic circle against evil, except that it is similar to protection from law instead of protection from evil, and it can imprison a nonchaotic called creature.

This spell functions like magic circle against evil, except that it is similar to protection from chaos instead of protection from evil, and it can imprison a nonlawful called creature.

Neutral is bound by all the circles so it's the worst alignment for an outsider to have.


This is definitely not RAW. Fiends may not have friends, but they very well might have allies, or at least someone may be upset that their direct underling was just stolen from them.

I mean given how upset you get with your DM if your pet disappears I don't understand why you consider it impossible that some devil's direct superior would get upset with some puny mortal for doing the same.

You should read the rest of the thread. My claim is supported by passages from FCII.

[Psyren]

You should read the rest of the thread. My claim is supported by passages from FCII.

But it's not though. Yes, devils scheme and backstab each other at opportune moments, but they also play the long game. What better way would there be for a devil to wheedle its way into a rival's unsuspecting "good graces" than to help squash some uppity and meaningless mortal who had them bound?

You're pulling out a very general passage about fiendish attitudes and concluding "therefore, my PC should be able to get away with anything, and any DM who says otherwise is a houseruling control freak." That's just not how it works.

[RoboEmperor]

You're pulling out a very general passage about fiendish attitudes and concluding "therefore, my PC should be able to get away with anything, and any DM who says otherwise is a houseruling control freak." That's just not how it works.

I said DMs dont read FCII and they're free to change the fluff of fiends as much as they want so all of this is moot, but in wotc's d&d setting binding fiends results in 0 rescue teams. Maybe the pit fiend gets an imp to the material realm, maybe he telepathically gets in touch with his own personal cult, and maybe he has them do stuff that will result in the spellcaster's doom. But in wotc's d&d setting no one comes to save poor pit fiend. Especially not another pit fiend, not the pit fiend's boss, and not any devil in a position to benefit from the pit fiend's demotion.

The pit fiend's freedom comes from his own ability, not from a friend.

edit:I honestly don't give a damn if a rescue team comes for the pit fiend (or Paeliryon because I don't bind pit fiends). More xp for me and the party. If the DM brings in an archdevil or 10 pit fiends however then yes he's an ass and I will leave the table.

[Psyren]

I said DMs dont read FCII and they're free to change the fluff of fiends as much as they want so all of this is moot, but in wotc's d&d setting binding fiends results in 0 rescue teams. Maybe the pit fiend gets an imp to the material realm and maybe he has it do stuff that will result in the spellcaster's doom. But in wotc's d&d setting no one comes to save poor pit fiend. Especially not another pit fiend, not the pit fiend's boss, and not any devil in a position to benefit from the pit fiend's demotion.

"In WotC's D&D setting," bindings by mortals go wrong all the time. The very book you keep citing, FC2, calls such mortals "foolish", "witless" and other unflattering terms multiple times in its pages. Since you like quotes:


More informed mortals sometimes actively seek to enslave devils and use them as tools to serve their own ends. Such efforts usually backfire, and the hubris of the act has a way of catching up with such casters.

And while we're on the subject, you were looking for evidence that devils work together. I've got that for you too:


“When you attack one demon, you attack a single creature. When you attack one devil, you attack them all.” —Corvana the Just, Paladin of Spherdale


any devil encounter—especially one in which the PCs prevail over one or more high-ranking baatezu—can lead to retaliatory attacks. The chance of such attacks increases with the magnitude of the adventurers’ victory.


Devils attack intelligently and in a coordinated fashion. In heavily good-dominated areas, they might strike from the shadows, attempting assassination by poisoning, booby-traps, or other covert means. More typically, they try to stage a very public assault on an inn where the PCs are staying or on their permanent headquarters.



If the DM brings in an archdevil or 10 pit fiends however then yes he's an ass and I will leave the table.

There is a middle ground between "I can bind whatever I want as long as I want with no repercussions" and "All of Baator will seek reprisals on the party" though. Just be reasonable about what you're binding, how long, and why. And watch your back.

[RoboEmperor]

"In WotC's D&D setting," bindings by mortals go wrong all the time. The very book you keep citing, FC2, calls such mortals "foolish", "witless" and other unflattering terms multiple times in its pages. Since you like quotes:

That's exactly what i'm saying. Foolish, witless mortals that make mistakes result in the freedom of a fiend in the material plane, not an interplanar rescue squad of fiends.


And while we're on the subject, you were looking for evidence that devils work together. I've got that for you too:

I never said they don't work together. I said they don't help each other. And the quotes don't exactly fit here. You haven't prevailed over the Pit Fiend. It's an ongoing struggle. Devils do retaliatory attacks because the PCs are a threat and must be taken out. If a mortal is using a Pit Fiend to fight other mortals they wouldn't give a damn.


There is a middle ground between "I can bind whatever I want as long as I want with no repercussions" and "All of Baator will seek reprisals on the party" though. Just be reasonable about what you're binding, how long, and why. And watch your back.

You do seem to be interpreting what I say in the worst possible way, like how you thought I was arguing for "PCs can enslave outsiders forever with one charisma check." I never said binding Fiends have no repercussions. I said they don't have rescue teams.

A Lore-friendly repercussion is a Pit Fiend that uses his telepathy to relay everything he sees and does and deduces about the PCs to the BBEG and then voluntarily failing a saving throw against a Banishment spell the BBEG prepared under the Pit Fiend's instructions during an ambush the Pit Fiend setup for the BBEG. Foolish Stupid Mortal did not see this coming.

A Lore-friendly repercussion is a Pit Fiend lying his ass off to the PCs and sends them to their death or has them murder a bunch of innocent people and result in the Paladin and Cleric losing their spellcasting and therefore their ability to adventure. Foolish Stupid Mortal did not tell the Pit Fiend not to lie to him.

A Lore-friendly repercussion is a Pit Fiend using his 1/year Wish to escape the Magic Circle and brutally murdering the PCs while they slept. Foolish Stupid Mortal did not read Wish's spell description.

A Lore UNFRIENDLY repercussion is a fellow Pit Fiend bringing an army to save his friend in need. THIS is all I'm arguing. Literally this is it. Don't do this repercussion with fiends because it betrays their lore.

[Deophaun]

A Lore-friendly repercussion is a Pit Fiend that uses his telepathy to relay everything he sees and does and deduces about the PCs to the BBEG and then voluntarily failing a saving throw against a Banishment spell the BBEG prepared under the Pit Fiend's instructions during an ambush the Pit Fiend setup for the BBEG. Foolish Stupid Mortal did not see this coming.
Telepathy extends only 100ft. How the heck is the BBEG getting enough time to free up a spell slot and prepare banishment? Let alone everything else.

And yeah, no one see the Pit Fiend teleporting out of the circle, because it's a rather stupid thing for the Pit Fiend to do. Now it has to go an entire year without its trump card, all because it gambled that the caster who has lived to make it to level 15 hasn't bothered with defenses against things wishing on top of him, like a simple contingency. If it fails, it's back to the circle with even less bargaining power.

[RoboEmperor]

Telepathy extends only 100ft. How the heck is the BBEG getting enough time to free up a spell slot and prepare banishment? Let alone everything else.

You can bind Pit Fiend for days, even weeks or years so while the Pit Fiend is out butchering the BBEG's minions, I think the Pit Fiend can use telepathy to talk to some of those minions and setup some kind of communication system and then setup an ambush with an amateur wizard with a scroll of Banishment. Of course this can all be stopped if the mortal is not foolish and stupid but smart and intelligent and forbid the Pit Fiend from using his telepathy to communicate with anyone but him.


And yeah, no one see the Pit Fiend teleporting out of the circle, because it's a rather stupid thing for the Pit Fiend to do. Now it has to go an entire year without its trump card, all because it gambled that the caster who has lived to make it to level 15 hasn't bothered with defenses against things wishing on top of him, like a simple contingency. If it fails, it's back to the circle with even less bargaining power.

The Pit Fiend did not share his name with the wizard so he cannot be re-bound. If the wizard teleports out his party mates have to fend for themselves. Afterwards the Pit Fiend can Greater Teleport at-will to his cultists and minions and start hunting the wizard. Again this can be stopped if the wizard is smart and intelligent instead of foolish and stupid.

edit:Against a smart and intelligent wizard the Pit Fiend will have no recourse but to be his slave. How smart does he have to be? Smarter than the DM.

[tyckspoon]

A Lore-friendly repercussion is a Pit Fiend using his 1/year Wish to escape the Magic Circle and brutally murdering the PCs while they slept. Foolish Stupid Mortal did not read Wish's spell description.


Speaking of sleeping.. the demon binder and his party sleep. The Pit Fiend doesn't. Have it spend all night telepathically whispering evil nothings into the party's dreams. Ideally this would result in a horror-movie style descent into madness situation or alignment shift where the characters' worst fears and personality traits are encouraged and amplified until they either kill each other or everybody goes Evil and is happy to help with the Pit Fiend's personal goals.. but D&D characters are allowed to ignore social effects by dint of being PCs and the player just saying 'no, I don't agree with that happening' and there's no social combat system in the rules to mediate it. So just have 'em save against the effects of a Nightmare spell, penalizing the save as if cast by a 'knows intimately' caster when the Fiend has been around long enough to know what levers to pull.

[RoboEmperor]

Speaking of sleeping.. the demon binder and his party sleep. The Pit Fiend doesn't. Have it spend all night telepathically whispering evil nothings into the party's dreams. Ideally this would result in a horror-movie style descent into madness situation or alignment shift where the characters' worst fears and personality traits are encouraged and amplified until they either kill each other or everybody goes Evil and is happy to help with the Pit Fiend's personal goals.. but D&D characters are allowed to ignore social effects by dint of being PCs and the player just saying 'no, I don't agree with that happening' and there's no social combat system in the rules to mediate it. So just have 'em save against the effects of a Nightmare spell, penalizing the save as if cast by a 'knows intimately' caster when the Fiend has been around long enough to know what levers to pull.


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.

While a very interesting thought I don't think the Pit Fiend's telepathy can go past the circle. Wish is the exception because it directly says the teleport effect ignores all local conditions which means the spell ignores the magic circle.

[Nifft]

I never said they don't work together. I said they don't help each other.

They help themselves.

And obviously, sometimes the best way to help one's self is to put others into debt by performing actions which help both yourself (in some subtle way) and them (in a more overt way).

[Deophaun]

You can bind Pit Fiend for days, even weeks or years so while the Pit Fiend is out butchering the BBEG's minions, I think the Pit Fiend can use telepathy to talk to some of those minions and setup some kind of communication system and then setup an ambush with an amateur wizard with a scroll of Banishment. Of course this can all be stopped if the mortal is not foolish and stupid but smart and intelligent and forbid the Pit Fiend from using his telepathy to communicate with anyone but him.
No one needs telepathy for that. Some paper and ink does just fine. Blood and a minion's backside even suffice if the creature don't have those. If you've allowed your bound servant that degree of freedom, you're asking for it, no matter what it is.

The Pit Fiend did not share his name with the wizard so he cannot be re-bound.
Yeah, but the imp you "interrogated" before binding the fiend did. That's how you got him instead of One That Would Be Missed. That base level of research is why you aren't imprisioned somewhere in the Nine Hells already.

If the wizard teleports out his party mates have to fend for themselves.
Do you often sleep with your party mates during downtime? I tend to sleep hundreds or thousands of miles away or on a completely separate plane even during adventures at the levels we're talking about. I mean, we are talking campaigns where binding Pit Fiends is an accepted thing, so I'm nowhere near pushing the optimization envelope with that.

Afterwards the Pit Fiend can Greater Teleport at-will to his cultists and minions and start hunting the wizard. Again this can be stopped if the wizard is smart and intelligent instead of foolish and stupid.
A level 15 Wizard, minimum. The foolish and stupid ones have all died well before then. Pit Fiends would know that and not play bad odds. Remember, this isn't free. It leaves them more vulnerable for an entire year.

The Chaotic-evil Balor, however, may like to gamble with a 2 and a 7. Unfortunately for them, they can only be bound by rarer casters far more experienced with the art than your average high-level Wizard (edit: of course, they lack wish, so this is moot).

[Deadline]

@RoboEmperor, do you have a quote for the whole "Elementals find eternal servitude acceptable" bit? Because what you've provided thus far isn't that.

Also, as was pointed out, and it's even in the spell description, binding isn't consequence free. You want it to be this safe, reliable thing, and the spell itself says that it isn't. That's not to say that it's a thing that will always fail, or that there will be weirdly disproportionate responses, but assuming that it's consequence free isn't correct.

And, as others have pointed out, the FC doesn't say what you are trying to claim. It's entirely reasonable that if someone important on the lower planes goes missing and appears to be in dire straits, someone will go looking for them (to either help, and curry favor, or see to it that they are finished off, along with any witnesses).

Your analogy with a corporation doesn't work either. There are real world examples of corporations sending rescue teams to retrieve employees.

[RoboEmperor]

@RoboEmperor, do you have a quote for the whole "Elementals find eternal servitude acceptable" bit? Because what you've provided thus far isn't that.

How do you explain this?

"you must compel it to accept bondage in the item by making an opposed Charisma check, as specified in the lesser planar binding spell description."

They are bound until the item is broken which could be virtually forever. Not to mention Golems are Earth Elementals made mindless and Force Golems are elementals who agree to an eternity of servitude in exchange for keeping their mind and will. All this suggests that elementals at least are super easily coerced and enslaved.


Also, as was pointed out, and it's even in the spell description, binding isn't consequence free. You want it to be this safe, reliable thing, and the spell itself says that it isn't. That's not to say that it's a thing that will always fail, or that there will be weirdly disproportionate responses, but assuming that it's consequence free isn't correct.

Again I never said consequence free. I said fiends don't have rescue teams. Read a few of the last posts in this thread, I gave some examples of how a Pit Fiend can kill the entire party without his best friend forever coming to kiss his ass. That's how fiends get free and murder mortals, not a BFF knight in shining armor.


And, as others have pointed out, the FC doesn't say what you are trying to claim. It's entirely reasonable that if someone important on the lower planes goes missing and appears to be in dire straits, someone will go looking for them (to either help, and curry favor, or see to it that they are finished off, along with any witnesses).

Reasonable as in a super rare situation that is not the norm? Sure. It's possible and perhaps you got so unlucky you bound a Pit Fiend that's crucial to a coup and his absence would be devastating to many parties. Reasonable as in what usually happens when a high ranking devil gets bound? Not a chance.


Your analogy with a corporation doesn't work either. There are real world examples of corporations sending rescue teams to retrieve employees.

I said a good corporation sends rescue teams while an evil CEO with a Darwinian survival of the fittest mindset would not.


A level 15 Wizard, minimum. The foolish and stupid ones have all died well before then.

Not in a low-op table.

[Deophaun]

Not in a low-op table.
Error: Low op tables do not deal with planar binding. Argument invalid.

[RoboEmperor]

Error: Low op tables do not deal with planar binding. Argument invalid.

Fair enough.

In any case for those who keep insisting devils have rescue teams, I ask you to find one instance of that. Because in all of the material I've been exposed to all fiends in the material realm are there because of a spellcaster's mistake, because of their own cunning ingenuity, because a Cult summoned them, or because they're enslaved by some wizard or cleric. Never because someone came to their rescue, ever. And I think this is on purpose because it's more fun for a fiend to escape rather than be rescued and wotc knows that so I think they intentionally setup the lore so fiends have to rely on corruption, trickery, and espionage for freedom, not interpol.

Elementals are too dumb and disorganized to do anything, and I don't think there's a single elemental out there capable of planar travel.

Angels are good, smart, intelligent, so they would act in every way you could think of that would help a celestial in need, so I'm not contesting that rescue teams come for planetars and devas. I even think it'd be weird if there wasn't a police force dedicated to rescuing enslaved celestials.

Slaads, yugoloths, Rakshasas, I have no idea so I don't touch them unless their service ends within a minute.

But Fiends are alone when bound, and if they are not that is a super rare special case not the norm. The only outside help they can get are their minions and cultists who are always weaker than the fiend itself, or the enemies of the PCs. And note that the fiend will be fighting for the PCs so he will not get his minions to attack the PCs directly unless it can result in his freedom like disrupting a magic circle when the PCs try to renew the planar binding or assassinating the PCs after his lies and trickery split them up.

[RoboEmperor]

I'm just gonna drop the topic about fiends being alone because
1. DMs make up their own fluff and it is absolutely r*****ed to say to them "You're not roleplaying devils properly"
2. The DMs I played with do that rescue team thing just for a fun encounter and never as a way to discourage me from using planar binding
3. The DMs I played with do that rescue team thing because they literally cannot find a way for my enslaved Paeliryon to escape which is no surprise since I do everything right. I use my Paeliryon as a mindless unthinking brute and forcing it to behave that way gives literally no openings for the DM to do anything.
4. The way I build my characters result in me being able to take on higher CR encounters by myself just fine so I can take whatever the DM throws at me.
5. If scrolls are available I usually mindrape my Paeliryons first and 15th level characters always have access to metropolises.
6. I really don't feel strongly about the subject matter. I mean I argued really hard here because I think that's the truth but ultimately, it's not a big deal, at all, and it doesn't matter so... dropping the subject.

I had only one DM who tried to do the rescue team thing because I wouldn't pay for my planar binding and truly tried to TPK us so I left that table. For more than one reason that DM was the worst DM I ever played with.

[Mato]

How is this a thread and why is it four pages already? This is D&D and stuff like animate dead, dominate monster, gate, geas, programmed amnesia, and turn undead exist. These things force actual slavery on creatures against their will.

Anything the creature considers unreasonable simply can never be agreed to. And without that agreeance it cannot be forced to do anything. Planar binding (not to be confused with planar ally) is about trapping a monster as you negotiate horrible one-sided terms before it breaks loose and tries to kill you or escapes. Are we supposed to have some kind of moral rally against independent contractors working 29 hours a week per job at minimal pay to feed their family? Because I think there are a lot of parallel considerations between the two and there is about a hundred TedEd videos, and millions of history lessons recited by millions of teachers every single year, that discuss what it means to be free. And I'm sure you could make a couple religions about it too.

[Crake]

I never said they don't work together. I said they don't help each other. And the quotes don't exactly fit here. You haven't prevailed over the Pit Fiend. It's an ongoing struggle. Devils do retaliatory attacks because the PCs are a threat and must be taken out. If a mortal is using a Pit Fiend to fight other mortals they wouldn't give a damn.

A Lore UNFRIENDLY repercussion is a fellow Pit Fiend bringing an army to save his friend in need. THIS is all I'm arguing. Literally this is it. Don't do this repercussion with fiends because it betrays their lore.

I highly disagree. Firstly, nobody's advocating for an ARMY, but a pit fiend can quite easily have loyal underlings who would rather serve under him than whoever's next in line. Not only will they serve with the devil they know (pun very much intended), but they will also likely recieve a promotion for helping their master. For the underlings it's a win-win.

Not to mention, the pit fiend may very well have contracts in place that require other fiends to come to their rescue, like it or not.

[Nifft]

How do you explain this?

"you must compel it to accept bondage in the item by making an opposed Charisma check, as specified in the lesser planar binding spell description."

I make an effort not to kink-shame the rule books.

[zergling.exe]

How do you explain this?

"you must compel it to accept bondage in the item by making an opposed Charisma check, as specified in the lesser planar binding spell description."

A specific interaction between planar binding, Khyber dragonshards, and the Bind Elemental feat.


They are bound until the item is broken which could be virtually forever. Not to mention Golems are Earth Elementals made mindless and Force Golems are elementals who agree to an eternity of servitude in exchange for keeping their mind and will. All this suggests that elementals at least are super easily coerced and enslaved.

Golems do not require planar binding to create so it cannot be argued that they are proof of elementals providing a general exception to the limits of planar binding.

[Selion]

edit:Against a smart and intelligent wizard the Pit Fiend will have no recourse but to be his slave. How smart does he have to be? Smarter than the DM.

You got the point, it's not the player that has to be smarter than the devil, it's the wizard. Few characters have the mix of intelligence, wisdom and charisma to deal with such an entity. Usually a very intelligent wizard is not that wise, he could overthink hundreds of counter measures to every single possible devil's action, but forget the most simple one (eg: wishing out of the circle) . Conversely a sorcerer would fascinate even the devil with his power, but rarely would come with intricate plans to prevent dire consequences. I agree that the infernal rescue team is a cheap way to deal with the issue and a well played pit fiend would manipulate the foolish who summoned him even if binded with the most accurate measures.

[RoboEmperor]

A specific interaction between planar binding, Khyber dragonshards, and the Bind Elemental feat.



Golems do not require planar binding to create so it cannot be argued that they are proof of elementals providing a general exception to the limits of planar binding.

I never said it provided the exception to the limits of planar binding. I said from all the fluff I read about elementals (them being permanently enslaved for a wide variety of reasons across all the settings) it was my impression that Elementals are more easily coerced than most extraplanar creatures which is why I think "eternal slavery" is not an unreasonable command for them, since you see them eternally enslaved everywhere.

If my supporting text is not enough to convince a DM that elementals are on the butt-end of everything, then so be it. Unlike fiends they don't have books dedicated to their ecology so this is as far as I can argue, not that I will since elementals are horrible targets for planar binding.


I highly disagree. Firstly, nobody's advocating for an ARMY, but a pit fiend can quite easily have loyal underlings who would rather serve under him than whoever's next in line. Not only will they serve with the devil they know (pun very much intended), but they will also likely recieve a promotion for helping their master. For the underlings it's a win-win.

Not to mention, the pit fiend may very well have contracts in place that require other fiends to come to their rescue, like it or not.

I'll just say I think everyone is right that the pinnacle of evil and intelligence that is the Pit Fiend would make alliances and other countermeasures to ensure they can never be planar bound. But WotC wants Pit Fiends to be planar bound so they intentionally made their lore "too evil" (pronounced DUMB) to work with others so they specifically don't do that and remain viable minions for both NPCs and players alike. Unapproachable East even has an illustration of a Pit Fiend being bound by a Nar Demonbinder.

It's like the same reason Pit Fiends don't capitalize their free wish for 1 Epic item a year to become too powerful for any PC to combat, or that Dragons don't cap out their wealth with craft contingent item. They are intentionally dumbed down so the average unoptimized fighter can have a chance at slaying them and an unoptimized wizard has a chance at enslaving them.

That's why I keep saying in WotC's d&d setting Pit Fiends are alone. But yes, if they truly acted like an INT26 creature they would be unkillable and unbindable.

Do you understand what I'm saying? WotC's d&d setting Pit Fiends are too evil (dumb) to organize contingent plans and strategies that will render them immune to planar binding and instead is completely vulnerable to it.

Out of character it makes sense why they don't have rescue teams, in character no it doesn't make sense that an INT26 creature that has thousands and thousands of years of espionage and politics experience is vulnerable to a 16yo wizard's planar binding.

edit:Minions coming to their rescue is pointless because the Pit Fiend is going to be fighting for the PCs so... at best the minions can conduct espionage operations to get their master freed. I don't see a problem with this lore-wise especially since it's the Pit Fiend using his espionage skills and strategic mind to gain his freedom and not a BFF knight in shining armor. I see a problem with a Pit Fiend or an Archdevil coming to the Pit Fiend's aid lore-wise.

[Psyren]

Do you understand what I'm saying? WotC's d&d setting Pit Fiends are too evil (dumb) to organize contingent plans and strategies that will render them immune to planar binding and instead is completely vulnerable to it.

This is yet another fallacy (Either/Or). The options are not just "immune to planar binding" and "completely vulnerable to it." Some devils will have contingencies in place, and some won't; some binders will be able to deal with those contingencies and force an advantageous deal, and some won't. That's why binding is dangerous, as the spell itself says, RAW; it cannot be made 100% foolproof 100% of the time in 100% of campaigns.

[Mordaedil]

Speaking of sleeping.. the demon binder and his party sleep. The Pit Fiend doesn't. Have it spend all night telepathically whispering evil nothings into the party's dreams. Ideally this would result in a horror-movie style descent into madness situation or alignment shift where the characters' worst fears and personality traits are encouraged and amplified until they either kill each other or everybody goes Evil and is happy to help with the Pit Fiend's personal goals.. but D&D characters are allowed to ignore social effects by dint of being PCs and the player just saying 'no, I don't agree with that happening' and there's no social combat system in the rules to mediate it. So just have 'em save against the effects of a Nightmare spell, penalizing the save as if cast by a 'knows intimately' caster when the Fiend has been around long enough to know what levers to pull.
I like this idea and while one could construct a social combat system if one so desired, I think it is better to play to the game systems strengths and just have a combat scenario play out in the dreams of the player, but where the players have strange psionic-like strength and the entire party fights in an Astral-plane like arena and the pit fiend seems strangely bound, as if one might realize that it is a lucid dream, one can start to truly weaken the pit fiend that way. But it's also a way to have the players fight an opponent and lose without actively dying, but getting gradually more and more corrupted.

I like this idea a lot.

[RoboEmperor]

This is yet another fallacy (Either/Or). The options are not just "immune to planar binding" and "completely vulnerable to it." Some devils will have contingencies in place, and some won't; some binders will be able to deal with those contingencies and force an advantageous deal, and some won't. That's why binding is dangerous, as the spell itself says, RAW; it cannot be made 100% foolproof 100% of the time in 100% of campaigns.

I'm not disagreeing about that. I am disagreeing about the contingencies themselves.

Lesser minions who won't benefit from their master's demotion like imps, Osyluths, maybe a Gelugon slowly scouting out the Pit Fiend's location via cults, establishing communication, and then orchestrating the wizard's doom? Nothing about this betrays the lore.

A squad of Paeliryons, Cornugons, and Malebranches arrive at the wizard's doorstep to save the Pit Fiend because they are loyal minions or part of an alliance? This betrays the lore.

Mephistopheles gating in front of the PCs yelling "Who took ma b**** away from me?" This betrays the lore.

All I'm saying is lore-wise Pit Fiends must orchestrate their own freedom. Must. Not by a friend, not by a zealot, but subtly with minions who will lose a direct fight with a fully rested 15th level party. Like them Greater Teleporting next to the wizard after the wizard's emergency Contingency Teleport goes off and the like. Or manipulate the NPCs who have power over the PCs like a Pleasure Devil corrupting the Duke into the Pit Fiend's pawn.

edit: Actually I think Pleasure Devils won't help the Pit Fiends because they are evolved Erinyes and are a separate faction of devils who refuse promotions even when offered.

[Crake]

I'll just say I think everyone is right that the pinnacle of evil and intelligence that is the Pit Fiend would make alliances and other countermeasures to ensure they can never be planar bound. But WotC wants Pit Fiends to be planar bound so they intentionally made their lore "too evil" (pronounced DUMB) to work with others so they specifically don't do that and remain viable minions for both NPCs and players alike. Unapproachable East even has an illustration of a Pit Fiend being bound by a Nar Demonbinder.

It's like the same reason Pit Fiends don't capitalize their free wish for 1 Epic item a year to become too powerful for any PC to combat, or that Dragons don't cap out their wealth with craft contingent item. They are intentionally dumbed down so the average unoptimized fighter can have a chance at slaying them and an unoptimized wizard has a chance at enslaving them.

That's why I keep saying in WotC's d&d setting Pit Fiends are alone. But yes, if they truly acted like an INT26 creature they would be unkillable and unbindable.

Do you understand what I'm saying? WotC's d&d setting Pit Fiends are too evil (dumb) to organize contingent plans and strategies that will render them immune to planar binding and instead is completely vulnerable to it.

Out of character it makes sense why they don't have rescue teams, in character no it doesn't make sense that an INT26 creature that has thousands and thousands of years of espionage and politics experience is vulnerable to a 16yo wizard's planar binding.

edit:Minions coming to their rescue is pointless because the Pit Fiend is going to be fighting for the PCs so... at best the minions can conduct espionage operations to get their master freed. I don't see a problem with this lore-wise especially since it's the Pit Fiend using his espionage skills and strategic mind to gain his freedom and not a BFF knight in shining armor. I see a problem with a Pit Fiend or an Archdevil coming to the Pit Fiend's aid lore-wise.

I honestly disagree. The main difference here is between a) binding a pit fiend to perform a task, which will most likely result in the task being twisted and perverted by the fiend to suit it's ends, which results in a minor time loss for the fiend, but made up for by the influence on the material plane he achieved, vs b) permanently binding a fiend and removing him from the hell equation.

If you bind the fiend, get him to do something, then let him go back, in all likelihood, he would probably be more likely to let it slide, as he could find some way to make it work in his favour, thanks to that 26 int you mentioned, plus he probably won't tell anyone else what happened, as doing so would make him look weak, so for the most part it will just look like he disappeared for a few days, then returned, status quo achieved. This is how WOTC achieves their story fantasy of mortals binding fiends. You on the other hand, are talking about permanently binding the fiend to your service by binding them repeatedly every time. That is a VERY different story. In your circumstance others are going to start to notice, and investigate.

Now, that's not to say that it's not POSSIBLE, there is plenty of lore supporting fiends being trapped, but usually it's just that: They're trapped, more like a prisoner than a slave, usually milked for information, rather than being constantly taken out for walks to do the wizard's bidding. By keeping them locked up, you can put protections in place to ensure they can't be found, and likewise hide the fact that it was you who bound them, but if you parade them around like a dog on a leash, then word will get back eventually and you will be found.

Also, you keep mentioning archdevils and other pit fiends, when nobody mentioned that at all. I mentioned a devil's superiors more in reference to if you bind like, an Ice devil or an erinyes, who happened to be in an important mission for a horned devil, that horned devil will come looking for their minion to find out what happened, or at the very least. A pit fiend is likely to have many mortals contracted to his aid in times like this, all it would take is a single imp to notice his master is missing and to activate the service clause in his master's contracts as per the Imp's orders. This could likewise apply to a group of underlings, and saying that the pit fiend would fight on the side of the PCs? That's thinking very highly of yourself, when the pit fiend refused to accept a binding without including "You will not force me to act against my own personal assets or interests" (as any binding without that clause would be unreasonable of course), so the fiend would just sit on the sidelines and watch.

[RoboEmperor]

If you bind the fiend, get him to do something, then let him go back, in all likelihood, he would probably be more likely to let it slide, as he could find some way to make it work in his favour, thanks to that 26 int you mentioned, plus he probably won't tell anyone else what happened, as doing so would make him look weak, so for the most part it will just look like he disappeared for a few days, then returned, status quo achieved. This is how WOTC achieves their story fantasy of mortals binding fiends. You on the other hand, are talking about permanently binding the fiend to your service by binding them repeatedly every time. That is a VERY different story. In your circumstance others are going to start to notice, and investigate.

Now, that's not to say that it's not POSSIBLE, there is plenty of lore supporting fiends being trapped, but usually it's just that: They're trapped, more like a prisoner than a slave, usually milked for information, rather than being constantly taken out for walks to do the wizard's bidding. By keeping them locked up, you can put protections in place to ensure they can't be found, and likewise hide the fact that it was you who bound them, but if you parade them around like a dog on a leash, then word will get back eventually and you will be found.

I don't think a Pit Fiend will ever let anything slide and if he returns home he will come after you 100% of the time no matter how trite a task you make him perform unless it was a consensual negotiation in which case it becomes the Pact Insidious. No pact insidious = vengeful pit fiend.

Also I disagree about how WOTC achieves their story fantasy of mortals binding fiends. There's plenty of stories of fiends pretending to be subservient and being treated like a dog until they make their play. When an NPC enslaves a fiend they enslave it for life. Look at my quote #6. No mention about renewing bindings and that Pain Devil ain't ever breaking free, at least not for a long while, longer than 1day/CL.

I'm not disagreeing about the investigation. I'm saying most fiends who investigate won't give a damn about the enslaved fiend and ignore or sabotage him, and only the Fiend's lesser underlings or cultists will come to his aid.


Also, you keep mentioning archdevils and other pit fiends, when nobody mentioned that at all. I mentioned a devil's superiors more in reference to if you bind like, an Ice devil or an erinyes, who happened to be in an important mission for a horned devil, that horned devil will come looking for their minion to find out what happened, or at the very least. A pit fiend is likely to have many mortals contracted to his aid in times like this, all it would take is a single imp to notice his master is missing and to activate the service clause in his master's contracts as per the Imp's orders. This could likewise apply to a group of underlings, and saying that the pit fiend would fight on the side of the PCs? That's thinking very highly of yourself, when the pit fiend refused to accept a binding without including "You will not force me to act against my own personal assets or interests" (as any binding without that clause would be unreasonable of course), so the fiend would just sit on the sidelines and watch.

You haven't mentioned it but other people have. "My subordinate doing an important thing suddenly goes missing so I'm a go find him" is the go to anti-planar binding reaction performed by the majority of DMs and some people have said this throughout this thread. Other people also talk about alliances with other Pit Fiends.

A smart wizard would know everything the Pit Fiend says or does will result in his doom so he would without a doubt reject every clause. I know I would. Remember, a bound Pit Fiend without wish is helpless against magic circle so he is bargaining for his life, and if being a dumb brute for x days even if it damages his interests means he lives it's a reasonable command. Pit Fiend is a bad example here because he does have wish which gives him considerable leverage since it's not his life on the line which is why I don't bind pit fiends but my point holds valid for all other fiends.

[Crake]

I don't think a Pit Fiend will ever let anything slide and if he returns home he will come after you 100% of the time no matter how trite a task you make him perform unless it was a consensual negotiation in which case it becomes the Pact Insidious. No pact insidious = vengeful pit fiend.

Also I disagree about how WOTC achieves their story fantasy of mortals binding fiends. There's plenty of stories of fiends pretending to be subservient and being treated like a dog until they make their play. When an NPC enslaves a fiend they enslave it for life. Look at my quote #6. No mention about renewing bindings and that Pain Devil ain't ever breaking free, at least not for a long while, longer than 1day/CL.

I'm not disagreeing about the investigation. I'm saying most fiends who investigate won't give a damn about the enslaved fiend and ignore or sabotage him, and only the Fiend's lesser underlings or cultists will come to his aid.

Well, first of all, let's keep in mind that rolling a 1 on your charisma check to bind the creature automatically results in it breaking free, but whether or not a pit fiend comes back to find you depends on how much of an inconvenience you were, and how much of a future inconvenience you might be. You may simply not be worth his time, or he may not have any way to realistically deal with you without arousing attention to the fact that he was bound, which he would likely want to keep under wraps. If you literally bound the fiend, made it an offer in exchange for a service, it agreed, performed the service, and left, exactly like the spell is intended to work, he most likely won't have any issue with leaving you be, after all, you just performed an evil act in the process of binding a fiend to begin with, so boom, hellbound.


You haven't mentioned it but other people have. "My subordinate doing an important thing suddenly goes missing so I'm a go find him" is the go to anti-planar binding reaction performed by the majority of DMs and some people have said this throughout this thread. Other people also talk about alliances with other Pit Fiends.

This would certainly come into play further down the food chain, where one fiend is usually only in charge of a few others at most, but at the very top of the food chain, those fiends are in charge of much larger groups, so it's unlikely they will go to investigate themselves, though they will almost definitely delegate that work to someone. Needless to say, they WILL investigate, it's just a question of who goes out.


A smart wizard would know everything the Pit Fiend says or does will result in his doom so he would without a doubt reject every clause. I know I would. Remember, a bound Pit Fiend without wish is helpless against magic circle so he is bargaining for his life, and if being a dumb brute for x days even if it damages his interests means he lives it's a reasonable command. Pit Fiend is a bad example here because he does have wish which gives him considerable leverage since it's not his life on the line which is why I don't bind pit fiends but my point holds valid for all other fiends.

Here we get into the nitty gritties of how planar binding ACTUALLY works. You see, planar binding doesn't give you absolute control over a creature, it simply forces that creature to perform a specific task. Now that task can be as detailed or as broard and ill defined as you like. You may say "Obey my orders to the best understanding of their intent", that seems like a well thought out task? Of course, it'll only last for days/level as per the spell, but you can order it around all day during that period, easy, right?

Not at all. You see, such a clause would mean you could order the creature to kill itself, and it would be forced to obey. Thus no creature ever would agree to such a task, as the task itself would be deemed unreasonable. If you try to use such broad sweeping "tasks", then this is where devils shine, as they would require you to articulate the specifics of task to the finest detail, ensuring you include safety clauses for their own personal protection, and then turn those clauses around on you.

And the pit fiend inside the circle is FAR from helpless. ANYTHING crossing that calling diagram will result in it breaking. Sending an orb of force over it, casting a ray, or hell, even just a ranged spell would mean magic is crossing the diagram, so if you try to harm him in any way, you'd better be ready to roll for initiative.

[Oblivionsmurf]

In addition to the general fluff regarding Devils, Fiendish Codex II also contains some crunch regarding the Planar Binding line of spells.

Page 30 provides:


A spellcaster who calls a devil using a planar binding spell must negotiate terms for its service, offering gifts and sacrifices to secure the desired assistance. In most cases, the negotiations are lengthy, involving several offers and counteroffers before an agreement is reached.

The table below details the Charisma check modifiers for a number of sample bribes and gifts, as well as the complexity of the task required, the length of service, and the circumstances of casting. You must offer enough gifts and bribes to bring the modifier back to +0 or higher, or your Charisma check automatically fails.

The book then goes on to provide a number of Charisma check modifiers. For example, the Charisma check modifier for one hour service per caster level is -4.

The book then goes on to provide a helpful worked example:


For example, Edgar, a 9th-level wizard, casts lesser planar binding to call a bearded devil. The service he demands will require 8 hours, imposing a –4 penalty on his Charisma check. Thus, Edgar must offset this penalty before the negotiations can even begin. The highest wealth offering he can make is 3,000 gp in assorted coins and goods. Since the devil has 6 HD, Edgar gains a +4 bonus, bringing the modifier on his Charisma check back up to +0.

This suggests that the Planar Binding spells involve bargaining, rather than compulsion, and that merely asserting that a Devil's reward is to be released from the Planar Binding spell will not be sufficient to even enable negotiations to begin. See also page 29 of the book, which provides:


For longer service, spellcasters can employ planar ally and planar binding spells, both of which involve actually calling a devil from Baator and making a bargain for its aid. As stated in the spell descriptions, planar ally requires a gift of 100 gp per HD of the summoned creature for tasks requiring just a few minutes, up to 500 gp per HD for tasks requiring hours, or 1,000 gp per HD for tasks requiring days. Planar binding spells are not as clear cut, stating only that the caster must make a series of offers and bribes to gain the outsider’s willing service, with higher offers generating better bonuses on the caster’s required Charisma check. For a more detailed look, see the Devilish Bribes and Gifts sidebar.

Even if you disagree that this suggests that the Planar Binding line of spells involves bargaining rather than pure compulsion, it certainly seems to inform what constitutes an impossible demand or unreasonable command (which are 'never agreed to').

[Crake]

In addition to the general fluff regarding Devils, Fiendish Codex II also contains some crunch regarding the Planar Binding line of spells.

Page 30 provides:


A spellcaster who calls a devil using a planar binding spell must negotiate terms for its service, offering gifts and sacrifices to secure the desired assistance. In most cases, the negotiations are lengthy, involving several offers and counteroffers before an agreement is reached.

The table below details the Charisma check modifiers for a number of sample bribes and gifts, as well as the complexity of the task required, the length of service, and the circumstances of casting. You must offer enough gifts and bribes to bring the modifier back to +0 or higher, or your Charisma check automatically fails.

The book then goes on to provide a number of Charisma check modifiers. For example, the Charisma check modifier for one hour service per caster level is -4.

The book then goes on to provide a helpful worked example:


For example, Edgar, a 9th-level wizard, casts lesser planar binding to call a bearded devil. The service he demands will require 8 hours, imposing a –4 penalty on his Charisma check. Thus, Edgar must offset this penalty before the negotiations can even begin. The highest wealth offering he can make is 3,000 gp in assorted coins and goods. Since the devil has 6 HD, Edgar gains a +4 bonus, bringing the modifier on his Charisma check back up to +0.

This suggests that the Planar Binding spells involve bargaining, rather than compulsion, and that merely asserting that a Devil's reward is to be released from the Planar Binding spell will not be sufficient to even enable negotiations to begin. See also page 29 of the book, which provides:


For longer service, spellcasters can employ planar ally and planar binding spells, both of which involve actually calling a devil from Baator and making a bargain for its aid. As stated in the spell descriptions, planar ally requires a gift of 100 gp per HD of the summoned creature for tasks requiring just a few minutes, up to 500 gp per HD for tasks requiring hours, or 1,000 gp per HD for tasks requiring days. Planar binding spells are not as clear cut, stating only that the caster must make a series of offers and bribes to gain the outsider’s willing service, with higher offers generating better bonuses on the caster’s required Charisma check. For a more detailed look, see the Devilish Bribes and Gifts sidebar.

Even if you disagree that this suggests that the Planar Binding line of spells involves bargaining rather than pure compulsion, it certainly seems to inform what constitutes an impossible demand or unreasonable command (which are 'never agreed to').

Keep in mind that the bargaining and everything mostly determines the opposed charisma check bonuses/penalties, you CAN just make a demand, roll an opposed charisma check, win, and force the creature into servitude. The bargaining part is optional, but ultimately, broad sweeping demands that enable you to give the fiend suicidal commands are generally going to be considered unreasonable, wheras giving the fiend a specific task like "build me a castle" would be less so.

The compulsion part however, comes from the fact that, once the terms are agreed to, whether by bargaining, or by forceful demand, the creature is bound by that demand, and cannot break it, even if they change their mind later. It is very much slavery, especially if you force a demand on a subject and give it no say in the matter, but ultimately, the line:


Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions.

Is something many people seem to forget. "Protect me to the best of your abilities" is a classic example. The fiend goes and purchases a scroll of imprisonment, and uses it on you. You are now safe.... buried miles beneath the earth.

[Oblivionsmurf]

Keep in mind that the bargaining and everything mostly determines the opposed charisma check bonuses/penalties, you CAN just make a demand, roll an opposed charisma check, win, and force the creature into servitude. The bargaining part is optional, but ultimately, broad sweeping demands that enable you to give the fiend suicidal commands are generally going to be considered unreasonable, wheras giving the fiend a specific task like "build me a castle" would be less so.

The only caveat I would add to this is that FCII clearly states that, if your overall Charisma check modifier is less than 0, your Charisma check automatically fails:


The table below details the Charisma check modifiers for a number of sample bribes and gifts, as well as the complexity of the task required, the length of service, and the circumstances of casting. You must offer enough gifts and bribes to bring the modifier back to +0 or higher, or your Charisma check automatically fails.

One way around this interpretation might be to limit it to Devils, rather than other Outsiders, but it otherwise seems a clear rule regarding the operation of Planar Binding and its ilk.

[Crake]

The only caveat I would add to this is that FCII clearly states that, if your overall Charisma check modifier is less than 0, your Charisma check automatically fails:


The table below details the Charisma check modifiers for a number of sample bribes and gifts, as well as the complexity of the task required, the length of service, and the circumstances of casting. You must offer enough gifts and bribes to bring the modifier back to +0 or higher, or your Charisma check automatically fails.

One way around this interpretation might be to limit it to Devils, rather than other Outsiders, but it otherwise seems a clear rule regarding the operation of Planar Binding and its ilk.

Honestly, this is the way I would interpret it. To a devil, any service outside of a contract is an unreasonable request, but to other creatures, I wouldn't imagine that to be the case. The planar binding spell specifically says the charisma modifier varies from +0 to +6, no mention of negative modifiers, and those rules are in the fiendish codex II and are discussing devils, so I would only apply them to devils as such.

[OgresAreCute]

Honestly, this is the way I would interpret it. To a devil, any service outside of a contract is an unreasonable request, but to other creatures, I wouldn't imagine that to be the case. The planar binding spell specifically says the charisma modifier varies from +0 to +6, no mention of negative modifiers, and those rules are in the fiendish codex II and are discussing devils, so I would only apply them to devils as such.

Considering the sidebar is titled "DEVILISH BRIBES AND GIFTS", the first sentence is "A spellcaster who calls a devil using a planar binding spell" and the header of the table is "Negotiations with Devils" I'd say it's pretty safe to assume this only applies to devils.

Not to mention that a lot of DMs probably won't know about or care about these rules. Of course, that doesn't change the actual rules but practice often differs from theory. I personally at least did not know about these rules at all and they seem a little wonky so I don't think I'd use this if I were DMing a game.

[Oblivionsmurf]

That's reasonable and almost certainly correct.

With that in mind, the text of the spells still envisages that some commands ('[i]mpossible demands or unreasonable commands') will always fail (regardless of your Charisma check), so presumably different creatures will have different thresholds for this (if we take the reasonable view that FC2 only applies to Devils).

[Rhedyn]

Why are people arguing about how to role-play evil outsiders?

Or is this one of those weird arguments where the Player is trying to say the demons he binds can't come after him?

[Florian]

That's reasonable and almost certainly correct.

With that in mind, the text of the spells still envisages that some commands ('[i]mpossible demands or unreasonable commands') will always fail (regardless of your Charisma check), so presumably different creatures will have different thresholds for this (if we take the reasonable view that FC2 only applies to Devils).

Nah. FC2 just exemplifies how the whole process works with devils, fleshing out a little bit detail of what exactly the contested CHA check is and how the gp cost really looks like.

If you want, actually look up the Ultimate Magic section on the PFSRD, which builds up on exactly that, shows how the brides and such for a whole variety of outsiders, from elementals, to djinn and such could look like.


Why are people arguing about how to role-play evil outsiders?

Or is this one of those weird arguments where the Player is trying to say the demons he binds can't come after him?

First, it´s one of those arguments that willfully try to ignore that the outsider in question is actually a fully formed NPC and should be played as such, not just a simple part of the spell.

Second, it´s one of those arguments, where a player wants a certain outcome to be true and ignores everything that would stand in the way of said outcome. (You know, like arguing that you can parma-bind a Ravid to animate an object or something).

[Segev]

For what Robo missed:Ah, thanks. I somehow forgot that clause. Weird that non-winged flight persists for skeletons; I'd have expected it not to.


This is definitely not RAW. Fiends may not have friends, but they very well might have allies, or at least someone may be upset that their direct underling was just stolen from them.

I mean given how upset you get with your DM if your pet disappears I don't understand why you consider it impossible that some devil's direct superior would get upset with some puny mortal for doing the same.

Heck, bind a Marilith and the succubi who were trading their service to her for her protection may want a word or two with you about keeping their protector from them.

But no, "rescue teams" seem unlikely. On the other hand, "Finding yourself entangled in fiendish politics based on their connections?" That sounds like plot.

Heck, if you do your research, you might even find a fiend who's in a precarious situation and who finds service to you for a period of time to be a good way to lie low for a while.

[RoboEmperor]

snip


Honestly, this is the way I would interpret it. To a devil, any service outside of a contract is an unreasonable request, but to other creatures, I wouldn't imagine that to be the case. The planar binding spell specifically says the charisma modifier varies from +0 to +6, no mention of negative modifiers, and those rules are in the fiendish codex II and are discussing devils, so I would only apply them to devils as such.


Considering the sidebar is titled "DEVILISH BRIBES AND GIFTS", the first sentence is "A spellcaster who calls a devil using a planar binding spell" and the header of the table is "Negotiations with Devils" I'd say it's pretty safe to assume this only applies to devils.

Not to mention that a lot of DMs probably won't know about or care about these rules. Of course, that doesn't change the actual rules but practice often differs from theory. I personally at least did not know about these rules at all and they seem a little wonky so I don't think I'd use this if I were DMing a game.

Devilish Bribes and Gifts is just that, bribes and gifts. If you want to bribe the devil you need to follow those rules. If you don't want to bribe the devil you don't use those rules. Simple as that. Enslavement is not a devilish bribe or a gift. Check out quote #6. it's from the same book and it clearly says enslave and not a consensual contract because if you read the Devilish Bribes and Gifts, none of the options there result in slavery. If you follow the Devilish Bribes and Gifts rules there will be 0 revenge. If you don't there will be revenge.


And the pit fiend inside the circle is FAR from helpless. ANYTHING crossing that calling diagram will result in it breaking. Sending an orb of force over it, casting a ray, or hell, even just a ranged spell would mean magic is crossing the diagram, so if you try to harm him in any way, you'd better be ready to roll for initiative.

Nope.
1. You can cast Dimensional Anchor after the creature is bound and the circle is not disrupted. Therefore spells don't disrupt the circle.
2. Some dirt on the circle does not break the circle. The rules are clear. Something like a straw must completely cut the circle
Where is your reasoning that a spell like Enervation or Assay Spell Resistance will break the circle?


Here we get into the nitty gritties of how planar binding ACTUALLY works. You see, planar binding doesn't give you absolute control over a creature, it simply forces that creature to perform a specific task. Now that task can be as detailed or as broard and ill defined as you like. You may say "Obey my orders to the best understanding of their intent", that seems like a well thought out task? Of course, it'll only last for days/level as per the spell, but you can order it around all day during that period, easy, right?

Not at all. You see, such a clause would mean you could order the creature to kill itself, and it would be forced to obey. Thus no creature ever would agree to such a task, as the task itself would be deemed unreasonable. If you try to use such broad sweeping "tasks", then this is where devils shine, as they would require you to articulate the specifics of task to the finest detail, ensuring you include safety clauses for their own personal protection, and then turn those clauses around on you.

And the pit fiend inside the circle is FAR from helpless. ANYTHING crossing that calling diagram will result in it breaking. Sending an orb of force over it, casting a ray, or hell, even just a ranged spell would mean magic is crossing the diagram, so if you try to harm him in any way, you'd better be ready to roll for initiative.

Check out quote #5. How do you explain a wizard casting spells that may kill the Whisper Demon if such commands without those safety clauses is an unreasonable command? No, if you planar bind an outsider it is your b****, and it knows that. Planar Binding is SLAVERY. Not a blackmailed negotiation, and slaves can die on the job or be made to do non-obviously-suicidal tasks. Quote #1 and #4 proves that the Charisma Check can force very extreme things. It depends on the outsider sure but it still can force extreme things on any outsider.


Why are people arguing about how to role-play evil outsiders?

Or is this one of those weird arguments where the Player is trying to say the demons he binds can't come after him?

For fun. It's not like anyone is contesting that Planar Binding is Slavery.


First, it´s one of those arguments that willfully try to ignore that the outsider in question is actually a fully formed NPC and should be played as such, not just a simple part of the spell.

Second, it´s one of those arguments, where a player wants a certain outcome to be true and ignores everything that would stand in the way of said outcome. (You know, like arguing that you can parma-bind a Ravid to animate an object or something).

I have repeatedly said I don't give a damn if a rescue team comes, DMs don't read the FCII so all this is moot, and telling a DM "You're roleplaying Devils wrong" is an absolutely r*****ed thing to do. And I fail to see how binding a ravid wouldn't result in a perpetually animated object. Does it say an object can be only animated once like it says in the text of a Blackstone Gigant? It's actually very surprising you have a problem with this considering you're the first person I've ever met that would even question the validity of this but whatever, if someone hates planar binding then literally nothing would make them think using the spell as intended is acceptable.

[Segev]

It's not like anyone is contesting that Planar Binding is Slavery.

As generally used, it absolutely is. I mean, powergaming wise, you want it to be: you get more power for minimal risk and cost.

It can be made something other than slavery, but it takes particular choices to do.

[Deophaun]

Devilish Bribes and Gifts is just that, bribes and gifts. If you want to bribe the devil you need to follow those rules. If you don't want to bribe the devil you don't use those rules. Simple as that.
No. Flat out wrong.

A spellcaster who calls a devil using a planar binding spell MUST negotiate terms for its service, offering girfts and sacrifices to secure the desired assistance.

[RoboEmperor]

No. Flat out wrong.

Read the section above it


Planar binding spells are not as clear cut, stating only that the caster must make a series of offers and bribes to gain the outsider’s willing service, with higher offers generating better bonuses on the caster’s required Charisma check. For a more detailed look, see the Devilish Bribes and Gifts sidebar.

You use those rules for WILLING service. You must use the sidebar for WILLING service. Unwilling you use PHBI's rules just like how Regenar did with the Pain Devil.

Those rules don't list Freedom as Payment and I've established that it can be the sole payment. Bribes and gifts are optional therefore those rules are optional rules.

[Arbane]

Well, first of all, let's keep in mind that rolling a 1 on your charisma check to bind the creature automatically results in it breaking free,

In optimizerland, rolling dice is for muggles.

[Deophaun]

You use those rules for WILLING service. You must use the sidebar for WILLING service.
The sidebar is worded universally. You are using formatting to justify your argument. The fact that negative Charisma modifiers automatically fail cuts strongly against your highly questionable interpretation.

[Particle_Man]

Another data point: Malconvokers are good at binding evil outsiders and as a class ability can cast evil spells without it affecting their alignment.

[RoboEmperor]

The sidebar is worded universally. You are using formatting to justify your argument. The fact that negative Charisma modifiers automatically fail cuts strongly against your highly questionable interpretation.

No it's not. The title clearly says Bribes and Gifts. The section I quoted says Bribes and Gifts. I don't see how the sidebar would apply to spellcasters who don't use bribes and gifts because it's solely for bribes and gifts. You can't take one sentence out of the context it was used in and call it proof.

I refer you to once again to the Pain Devil that was enslaved in the same book by Planar Binding. Does the Devilish Bribes and Gift mention slavery? With all those cultist worshippers, sacrifices, and money? No. It does not. You cannot enslave a devil with those rules. A devil has been enslaved in the same book with Planar Binding. And Bribes and Gifts are optional. There is only one conclusion you can reach with all these facts. That sidebar only applies to spellcasters who wish to employ a devil's WILLING service.

Your interpretation betrays Planar Binding's text, several of the quotes I quoted on the 1st page, the text in Infernal ALLIANCES section, and the Pain Devil's monster entry text. My interpretation betrays none.

[Rhedyn]

No. Flat out wrong.Excuse me, but why is a DM trying to justify their running of planar binding with RAW from splat books?

1. The only justification you need for houserules is "My game works this way"

2. RAW arguments about how a core book spell works should only reference rules in the core book. Otherwise you are saying the core book's RAW changes with the existence of splat books, which is nonsense.

3. This is a super lazy way to curtail planar binding abuse that succeeds in only preventing the DM from having to do some roleplaying.

[Segev]

Nothing in the rules prevents you from "bribing" and "negotiating" by means other than what one might consider ordinary bribery (e.g. money or sacrifices). You could offer it freedom to pursue its own aims within certain limits as long as it also serves you. This might even take the form of "I'm going to ask you to hunt down and kill Bob the Guy You Really Hate," getting the fiend to say, "I'm in! Let's do this!" Or you might do it by casting charm monster or dominate monster and cajolling/compelling it to accept servitude (and repeated applications of the appropriate spells to keep it controlled). Heck, you might already be allies, or even friends. Nothing says fiends are incapable of friendship, just that they're not good people. Villains can have friends, even loved ones. And a deliberately botched planar binding is a way that a cult could bring their fiendish overlord into the world. Or one of their overlord's other servants. This may be closer to a planar ally in concept, but in practice, if you don't have a cleric but do have a wizard...

In short, the more you treat it like an interaction with NPCs, the more your options for how to work it open up.

[magicalmagicman]

No it's not. The title clearly says Bribes and Gifts. The section I quoted says Bribes and Gifts. I don't see how the sidebar would apply to spellcasters who don't use bribes and gifts because it's solely for bribes and gifts. You can't take one sentence out of the context it was used in and call it proof.

I refer you to once again to the Pain Devil that was enslaved in the same book by Planar Binding. Does the Devilish Bribes and Gift mention slavery? With all those cultist worshippers, sacrifices, and money? No. It does not. You cannot enslave a devil with those rules. A devil has been enslaved in the same book with Planar Binding. And Bribes and Gifts are optional. There is only one conclusion you can reach with all these facts. That sidebar only applies to spellcasters who wish to employ a devil's WILLING service.

Your interpretation betrays Planar Binding's text, several of the quotes I quoted on the 1st page, the text in Infernal ALLIANCES section, and the Pain Devil's monster entry text. My interpretation betrays none.

Holy crap! I've never seen anyone beat that sidebar before! I always used the argument Rhedyn used!

You seem to be the true Planar Binding master of this forum.

[Nifft]

You seem to be the true Planar Binding master of this forum.

If Planar Binding has a master, then I guess it really is slavery.

[Arbane]

Well, now we've got our next campaign's apocalyptic plot: "The Outsiders have unionized". :smallbiggrin:

[OgresAreCute]

Well, now we've got our next campaign's apocalyptic plot: "The Outsiders have unionized". :smallbiggrin:

Does hell have socialized healthcare? :smallamused:

[One Step Two]

Does health have socialized healthcare? :smallamused:

Many outsiders have cleric levels, so I would assume yes!

[Zanos]

The sidebar is worded universally. You are using formatting to justify your argument. The fact that negative Charisma modifiers automatically fail cuts strongly against your highly questionable interpretation.
Isn't PHB going to be a primary source? The original printing of the spell clearly says the Charisma modifier ranges from +0 to +6. The entire FC sidebar at odds with the original writeup, actually.

[RoboEmperor]

Holy crap! I've never seen anyone beat that sidebar before! I always used the argument Rhedyn used!

You seem to be the true Planar Binding master of this forum.

Thanks for the compliment but I'm not trying to "beat" anything. I'm just trying to use the spell as intended by its writers in my games which is enslavement of a powerful creature at great risk to your person and all this rule citation is simply to stop DMs trying to pervert the spell's text into their warped house rule and call that RAW or RAI.

Just to be clear I'm not talking about anyone in this thread, I'm solely talking about the DMs that caused me to hunt for these citations.

[Braininthejar2]

If that were true, much of the Enchantment school would have the [Evil] label.

In Dragonlance setting, school specialisations are divided between alignments - Black robes get necromancy or enchantment. It is messing with people's will. And there is a lot of arguments between real life "magic practitioners" that love charms should not be considered white magic.

[Oblivionsmurf]

Read the section above it
You use those rules for WILLING service. You must use the sidebar for WILLING service. Unwilling you use PHBI's rules just like how Regenar did with the Pain Devil.


I disagree with this interpretation of the sidebar in Fiendish Codex II, primarily because it seems to assume that a caster using Planar Binding can somehow elect between willing service and compulsion. Planar Binding merely provides:


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.


(Emphasis added).

There is only one form of service permitted under Planar Binding: compulsion by means of an opposed Charisma check, with rewards offered solely as a means to increase that Charisma check.

This is reinforced by Fiendish Codex II, which provides (at page 29):


Some devils can be summoned with summon monster spells. Such a spell gains the evil descriptor when used to conjure an evil creature, so anyone who uses it in this way gains 1 corruption point (see Corrupt Acts, below). While such spells provide quick and useful services from the summoned beings, the duration is quite limited.

For longer service, spellcasters can employ planar ally and planar binding spells, both of which involve actually calling a devil from Baator and making a bargain for its aid. As stated in the spell descriptions, planar ally requires a gift of 100 gp per HD of the summoned creature for tasks requiring just a few minutes, up to 500 gp per HD for tasks requiring hours, or 1,000 gp per HD for tasks requiring days. Planar binding spells are not as clear cut, stating only that the caster must make a series of offers and bribes to gain the outsider’s willing service, with higher offers generating better bonuses on the caster’s required Charisma check. For a more detailed look, see the Devilish Bribes and Gifts sidebar.

Even though this passage mentions 'willing service', it doesn't distinguish between that 'willing service' and pure compulsion; it instead merely notes that Planar Binding allows for longer service than summon monster spells, but that this services requires a 'bargain' and 'willing service'. Put another way, it is telling that Fiendish Codex II does not also include a passage to the effect of 'you can also bind a Devil without gaining its willing service', or similar (particularly in circumstances where it is otherwise describing mechanisms for securing longer service by Devils).

I should emphasise that I agree with you that the ordinary principle is that freedom can be a sufficient reward for a Planar Binding spell (see generally Tome of Magic, page 7); however, Fiendish Codex II seems to be authority for the proposition that Devils require something more. That is, I think it is more likely that Fiendish Codex II sets down rules for what constitutes an 'unreasonable command' for a Devil than for Planar Binding to have separate 'compulsion' and 'willing service' limbs (when that is not supported by the primary text).

Let me know what you think.

[RoboEmperor]

I should emphasise that I agree with you that the ordinary principle is that freedom can be a sufficient reward for a Planar Binding spell (see generally Tome of Magic, page 7); however, Fiendish Codex II seems to be authority for the proposition that Devils require something more. That is, I think it is more likely that Fiendish Codex II sets down rules for what constitutes an 'unreasonable command' for a Devil than for Planar Binding to have separate 'compulsion' and 'willing service' limbs (when that is not supported by the primary text).

Let me know what you think.


A wizard named Regenar used a planar binding spell to enslave a pain devil. The devil tortures its master’s prisoners, teasing out secrets with profane skill. It relishes the moment when it can turn its talents on the mortal who bound it.

1. The Devilish Bribes sidebar is in Fiendish Codex II
2. The above quote is in Fiendish Codex II. In other words they are both from the same book.
3. It is impossible to enslave a Devil using the rules in the Devilish Bribes sidebar.
4. Yet in the same book a wizard used the Planar Binding spell (not dominate monster) to enslave a Devil.

Therefore...
1. FCII directly says Devils can be enslaved
2. The only way you can enslave Devils is if you ignore that sidebar.
3. Therefore in conclusion you only use the Devilish Bribes sidebar during a consensual planar binding when you're using bribes and you ignore it if you are not trying to obtain a devil's willing service.

You got two things fighting you here.
1. The sidebar was used to elaborate willing service under Infernal Alliances.
2. The sidebar is incompatible with slavery.

Your logic might put up a fight with 1 but not 2.

[Oblivionsmurf]

1. The Devilish Bribes sidebar is in Fiendish Codex II
4. Yet in the same book a wizard used the Planar Binding spell (not dominate monster) to enslave a Devil.


We're down to semantical criticism here. The use of the word 'enslave' here is equivalent to 'compel' in the primary text. There remains only one form of action permitted by Planar Binding: compulsion, with a Charisma check supported by rewards (and with Devils automatically refusing any Charisma check where the base modifier is below 0).

[RoboEmperor]

We're down to semantical criticism here. The use of the word 'enslave' here is equivalent to 'compel' in the primary text. There remains only one form of action permitted by Planar Binding: compulsion, with a Charisma check supported by rewards (and with Devils automatically refusing any Charisma check where the base modifier is below 0).

You forgot willing. Enslave =/= Willing.

It's up to you how you interpret it but the sidebar fails to give a charisma modifier for threat of death which results in the devil's demotion. Are devils really going to choose demotion which will take thousands of years to recover from over serving a mortal for 1day/caster level?

I understand your argument. You're saying there's only one type of compulsion in Planar Binding but that's not true. The bound outsider can be happy and not seek revenge because of the bribes or be angry and bloodthirsty if he was threatened into service. The "compulsion" can be you using your charisma to charm the guy, or in the Malconvoker's case, using his Bluff check to lie to the guy and make him a willing helper. According to your interpretation such a difference in behavior cannot be achieved.

The Bribes and Gifts sidebar is for cultists and devil worshippers who strike bargains with devils, not wizards who enslave devils under threat of death or the like.

For a charisma check that results in no vengeance you use roleplay, bribes, or gifts. For a charisma check that will result in vengeance you just roll the dice and kill the outsider if you fail.

I think it's clear the sidebar is for consensual agreements only and there's enough RAW to support this claim and if the player decides to go another way it wouldn't apply.

[Oblivionsmurf]

You forgot willing. Enslave =/= Willing.

I think it's clear the sidebar is for consensual agreements only and there's enough RAW to support this claim and if the player decides to go another way it wouldn't apply.

But the introduction to the sidebar itself expressly refers to compulsion/enslavement:


Occasionally, a foolish mortal dabbles in forbidden knowledge and lore without realizing the danger it holds. Perhaps initial experiments go well enough, emboldening the seeker to continue. But the deeper such an amateur delves, the greater the risk of attracting infernal attention, until at last a devil arrives to seduce and cajole the fool who has been witlessly exploring the obscene and forbidden.

More informed mortals sometimes actively seek to enslave devils and use them as tools to serve their own ends. Such efforts usually backfire, and the hubris of the act has a way of catching up with such casters. Some devils can be summoned with summon monster spells. Such a spell gains the evil descriptor when used to conjure an evil creature, so anyone who uses it in this way gains 1 corruption point (see Corrupt Acts, below). While such spells provide quick and useful services from the summoned beings, the duration is quite limited.

For longer service, spellcasters can employ planar ally and planar binding spells, both of which involve actually calling a devil from Baator and making a bargain for its aid. As stated in the spell descriptions, planar ally requires a gift of 100 gp per HD of the summoned creature for tasks requiring just a few minutes, up to 500 gp per HD for tasks requiring hours, or 1,000 gp per HD for tasks requiring days. Planar binding spells are not as clear cut, stating only that the caster must make a series of offers and bribes to gain the outsider’s willing service, with higher offers generating better bonuses on the caster’s required Charisma check. For a more detailed look, see the Devilish Bribes and Gifts sidebar.

I agree, however, that the sidebar does not include a circumstance modifier for threats of death, which must surely boost the Charisma check modifier (though I am not aware of any RAW regarding that).

[RoboEmperor]

But the introduction to the sidebar itself expressly refers to compulsion/enslavement:

I agree, however, that the sidebar does not include a circumstance modifier for threats of death, which must surely boost the Charisma check modifier (though I am not aware of any RAW regarding that).

Again you forgot to highlight "willing service".


More informed mortals sometimes actively seek to enslave devils and use them as tools to serve their own ends. Such efforts usually backfire, and the hubris of the act has a way of catching up with such casters.
is a fun fact.


Some devils can be summoned with summon monster spells. Such a spell gains the evil descriptor when used to conjure an evil creature, so anyone who uses it in this way gains 1 corruption point (see Corrupt Acts, below). While such spells provide quick and useful services from the summoned beings, the duration is quite limited.
is a completely different fact not related to slavery. Summoning =/= slavery. Subject has been changed.


For longer service, spellcasters can employ planar ally and planar binding spells, both of which involve actually calling a devil from Baator and making a bargain for its aid. As stated in the spell descriptions, planar ally requires a gift of 100 gp per HD of the summoned creature for tasks requiring just a few minutes, up to 500 gp per HD for tasks requiring hours, or 1,000 gp per HD for tasks requiring days. Planar binding spells are not as clear cut, stating only that the caster must make a series of offers and bribes to gain the outsider’s willing service, with higher offers generating better bonuses on the caster’s required Charisma check. For a more detailed look, see the Devilish Bribes and Gifts sidebar.
is a completely different fact related to willing service and tells you to look at the sidebar for more elaboration about this willing service. Planar Ally is NOT slavery. You cannot enslave anything with Planar Ally.

As you admitted there is no threat of death modifier, or "freedom" modifier since freedom is the payment. And you really can't ignore the sidebar's title: Devilish BRIBES and GIFTs. Tell me, if a Planar Binding attempt has 0 bribes or gifts, why would this sidebar be invoked? There are no bribes or gifts so no one would look up or use rules pertaining to bribes or gifts.

[Florian]

I'm just trying to use the spell as intended by its writers

And this is where you're incorrect. Binding and Ally didn't really change along the editions, with the 3E version being the worst update of the spells, mostly because of the faulty translation of some rules aspects that made sense in AD&D, but don't in d20.

If you want to go with "intended by the writers", you actually have to go back to Gygax (and then blame him for the idea to put everything in the format of single spells).

The basic idea is to create a trap (magic circle), lure an outsider into it (it´s largely unexplained how that should happen, because it works like a high precision reverse plane shift, something that doesn't exist outside of Gate) and than bribe/haggle/coerce/force into a deal (the CHA and gp part of it).

Now the thing with 3E, 3.5E and PF is, that we have a massive overlap happen on things that now exist by the rules, but didn't in AD&D, where many of the original ideas, tropes, items and spells come from. The point about RAW is, that in any of these three editions, the GM section is pretty clear about how to adjust that overlap, namely by disallowing it and saying "nope". PF is even clearer about it, suggesting to allow an overlap maybe once or twice, but should a pattern emerge, put the foot down on it, hard (And yes, the GM section is the only relevant RAW of the game that matters. The best example is actually an item of permanent True Strike, to understand the whole concept).

That overlap is the major thing here, tho, which needs to be pointed out to understand how a GM should/will adjust the rules here. You will always have to look at the bigger picture and handle the costs accordingly. Yeah, we're using certain tropes a lot and stumble into creating new ones that we try to justify with the given rules we work with. No-one actually cares whether that "Guardian Daemon" is bund to protect the vault for eternity or replaced every 12 days, it doesn't matter, its a trope, no one really cares. But once you start to infringe on Create Wondrous Item or Create Construct territory, things are going to get interesting.

[Segev]

Now the thing with 3E, 3.5E and PF is, that we have a massive overlap happen on things that now exist by the rules, but didn't in AD&D, where many of the original ideas, tropes, items and spells come from. The point about RAW is, that in any of these three editions, the GM section is pretty clear about how to adjust that overlap, namely by disallowing it and saying "nope". PF is even clearer about it, suggesting to allow an overlap maybe once or twice, but should a pattern emerge, put the foot down on it, hard (And yes, the GM section is the only relevant RAW of the game that matters. The best example is actually an item of permanent True Strike, to understand the whole concept).

That overlap is the major thing here, tho, which needs to be pointed out to understand how a GM should/will adjust the rules here. You will always have to look at the bigger picture and handle the costs accordingly. Yeah, we're using certain tropes a lot and stumble into creating new ones that we try to justify with the given rules we work with. No-one actually cares whether that "Guardian Daemon" is bund to protect the vault for eternity or replaced every 12 days, it doesn't matter, its a trope, no one really cares. But once you start to infringe on Create Wondrous Item or Create Construct territory, things are going to get interesting.

I'm afraid your "there exists an overlap of things" has lost me, because you're not clearly connecting this "overlap" to whatever it is you're arguing against. What "things" exist in this "overlap" that RoboEmperor (or others) are abusing, misunderstanding, or otherwise need to know should just be "nope"'d away by the DM for Gygax's intent to be followed?

I'm not even arguing against you here: I can't figure out what you're trying to say other than "I disagree." I can't parse the why.

[unseenmage]

I'm afraid your "there exists an overlap of things" has lost me, because you're not clearly connecting this "overlap" to whatever it is you're arguing against. What "things" exist in this "overlap" that RoboEmperor (or others) are abusing, misunderstanding, or otherwise need to know should just be "nope"'d away by the DM for Gygax's intent to be followed?

I'm not even arguing against you here: I can't figure out what you're trying to say other than "I disagree." I can't parse the why.
Same. I think that I could guess at the intent but that would be a guess.

[Selion]

You forgot willing. Enslave =/= Willing.

It's up to you how you interpret it but the sidebar fails to give a charisma modifier for threat of death which results in the devil's demotion. Are devils really going to choose demotion which will take thousands of years to recover from over serving a mortal for 1day/caster level?

I understand your argument. You're saying there's only one type of compulsion in Planar Binding but that's not true. The bound outsider can be happy and not seek revenge because of the bribes or be angry and bloodthirsty if he was threatened into service. The "compulsion" can be you using your charisma to charm the guy, or in the Malconvoker's case, using his Bluff check to lie to the guy and make him a willing helper. According to your interpretation such a difference in behavior cannot be achieved.

The Bribes and Gifts sidebar is for cultists and devil worshippers who strike bargains with devils, not wizards who enslave devils under threat of death or the like.

For a charisma check that results in no vengeance you use roleplay, bribes, or gifts. For a charisma check that will result in vengeance you just roll the dice and kill the outsider if you fail.

I think it's clear the sidebar is for consensual agreements only and there's enough RAW to support this claim and if the player decides to go another way it wouldn't apply.

I won't judge if your table likes to play according by RAW and theorycrafting, everyone is free to play the way he likes. D&D and RAW are not best friends anyway, the lone sheer volume of rules makes impossible to have even a vague balance and DM is usually needed to prevent abuses, even if abuses follow the rules. Every DM has a way to do it, someone just says "nope", someone is able to insert plot hooks that makes the abuse exploitable, there are cheap ways (interplanar rescue squad) and elegant ways to obtain the same result, but a DM should interfere when something may break the players amusement or the game atmosphere (i repeat, if players are happy with a guy morphing himself immune to fire to walk inside a demon i won't complain, i just have a different taste)

[Florian]

@Segev:

Overlap happens when you can gain the same result, using entirely different (sub)systems and rules to get there.

For example, when the game system treads a permanent minion as something that is either a class feature (ex: Druid animal companion, Wizard familiar) or has to be "bought" via feat (ex: Squire, Torchbearer, Leadership) or WBL (ex: Ultimate Campaign Mass Combat system), then a permanent Planar Binding doesn't fit there. It infringes on other rules that are already established (ex: Leadership would actually allow only for a whopping 2 Barbazu at extremely high level)

[Deadline]

I'm just trying to use the spell as intended by its writers

The issue here is, you are reading more into the spell than is there. You are assuming that the spell is naturally intended to interact with other spells not mentioned in its description. The spell really is as filled with DM interpretation as it appears to be in the PHB. Compiling a list of rules quotes from a dozen books doesn't speak to the intent, because you are trying to take the interpretations of dozens of writers and editors and claim that they somehow show intent for writers of the original spell. Except that can't possibly be the case (certainly not without a time machine).

At best, your quotes show a possible reading of how to interpret the spell consistently. The main issue you seem to be running into here is that your interpretation leans heavily into the consequence free area, which is counter to the spell description itself, and also problematic for game balance at many tables.

It also doesn't help that you make sweeping declarative statements like "Fiends don't get rescue teams," "Fiends must free themselves", and "shove these rule quotes in your DM's face". And then also try to say that you aren't trying to claim that DM's are RPing fiends wrong if they do those things.

You seem to have this weird chip on your shoulder regarding how you think things should be, and I can't tell if it's because of interactions you've had here, or if you are viewing all of the criticism of your argument through your personal lens of bad experiences with a DM in the past. Heck, it's very possible I'm misunderstanding your argument, so please clarify if I'm missing something.

[Rhedyn]

It also doesn't help that you make sweeping declarative statements like "Fiends don't get rescue teams."
Hahaha, yes this 5th level spell binds the most powerful demons and devils and gods by preventing them from saving this Imp.

Hahaha No.

[RoboEmperor]

I won't judge if your table likes to play according by RAW and theorycrafting, everyone is free to play the way he likes. D&D and RAW are not best friends anyway, the lone sheer volume of rules makes impossible to have even a vague balance and DM is usually needed to prevent abuses, even if abuses follow the rules. Every DM has a way to do it, someone just says "nope", someone is able to insert plot hooks that makes the abuse exploitable, there are cheap ways (interplanar rescue squad) and elegant ways to obtain the same result, but a DM should interfere when something may break the players amusement or the game atmosphere (i repeat, if players are happy with a guy morphing himself immune to fire to walk inside a demon i won't complain, i just have a different taste)

I always end up looking like a rule lawyering theorycrafter when I use rules to stop DMs from rule lawyering to nerf planar binding. As others said there is no way a splat book can change how a core spell is used and my rule lawyering just proved that the splat book in question did NOT in fact change how the core spell is used.


The issue here is, you are reading more into the spell than is there. You are assuming that the spell is naturally intended to interact with other spells not mentioned in its description. The spell really is as filled with DM interpretation as it appears to be in the PHB. Compiling a list of rules quotes from a dozen books doesn't speak to the intent, because you are trying to take the interpretations of dozens of writers and editors and claim that they somehow show intent for writers of the original spell. Except that can't possibly be the case (certainly not without a time machine).

At best, your quotes show a possible reading of how to interpret the spell consistently. The main issue you seem to be running into here is that your interpretation leans heavily into the consequence free area, which is counter to the spell description itself, and also problematic for game balance at many tables.

It also doesn't help that you make sweeping declarative statements like "Fiends don't get rescue teams," "Fiends must free themselves", and "shove these rule quotes in your DM's face". And then also try to say that you aren't trying to claim that DM's are RPing fiends wrong if they do those things.

You seem to have this weird chip on your shoulder regarding how you think things should be, and I can't tell if it's because of interactions you've had here, or if you are viewing all of the criticism of your argument through your personal lens of bad experiences with a DM in the past. Heck, it's very possible I'm misunderstanding your argument, so please clarify if I'm missing something.

I'm not reading more into the spell, it's the opposite. I'm stopping DMs from reading more into the spell. The spell description makes it clear bribes and gifts are optional and can just roll a charisma check to obtain service. It's the DMs who read more into the spell and claim "free service is an unreasonable command" and that's where the rule lawyering war begins. If I didn't have these quotes a lot of forum members here would've yelled "unreasonable command" and demanded wealth or a favor (usually very evil) in return for the service.

The list of rule quotes does speak intent. If a player doesn't want to use bribes and gifts and just roll a charisma check he can and the list of rule quotes show he definitely can. That's it.

The fiend debate was just for fun because why not? I was voicing my opinion on how fiends in d&d behave and voiced my disagreement with others that fiends act in a unionized mutually beneficial fashion with each other. Telling DMs they're roleplaying their own monster in their own world wrong is one of the best ways to ruin everyone's fun, especially the DM's so I don't talk about FCII lore with anyone except people online.

My abrasiveness is just the way I communicate. As Psyren noticed my arguments tend to go into extremes. "Impossible or completely vulnerable". It's just who I am, I end up talking like that without even noticing it even when I don't meant to say it that way.

As Deophaun pointed out with an intelligent enough player it is impossible for Planar Binding to have consequences and I am such player. The main most dangerous part of Planar Binding is rolling a 1 and I completely eliminated that risk with Surge of Fortune. I've eliminated the enslaved fiend's ability to conduct espionage by forcing it to act like a dumb brute and prevent it from communicating with anyone but me and if you stack a couple more stuff on top of this you got a consequence free planar binding as a result of my preparation and efforts.

Now some people have a problem with this. Because of how good I am with Planar Binding, Planar Binding now seems like a consequence free spell that gives me slaves for free at no risk at all, but that's because I'm better at the game than the DM. If a DM gets angry at how I made planar binding risk-free he might send rescue teams over and over resulting in other PC deaths at which point the other players gang up on me to not use planar binding. In this scenario I leave the table because the DM is a douche. If a DM doesn't get angry and throws a rescue team or two just for fun and does NOT use it as a way to discourage players from using planar binding I stay, and I believe this is how a good DM is supposed to behave.

edit: I just remembered when one of my DMs sent a hit squad of celestials or adventuerers instead of a rescue team of devils to slay the fiend I bound. We took them all out nonlethally and dropped them off in town. And he did not do this out of spite but just to give us the whole "you're trafficking with evil!" vibe. I really respected this DM.

[Rhedyn]

As Deophaun pointed out with an intelligent enough player it is impossible for Planar Binding to have consequences and I am such player.
Boccob, the God of Magic, decides to smite you for Binding too much.

How does a smart guy like you get around that consequence?

[RoboEmperor]

Boccob, the God of Magic, decides to smite you for Binding too much.

How does a smart guy like you get around that consequence?

I roll a new character, create Ice Assassins of Boccob and murder his ass. Then I have them start making ice assassins of other gods and murder all of them and then I have them murder everything in the universe.

[Keltest]

I roll a new character, create Ice Assassins of Boccob and murder his ass. Then I have them start making ice assassins of other gods and murder all of them and then I have them murder everything in the universe.

I think you've missed a few necessary steps in between that first and second stage.

[Segev]

@Segev:

Overlap happens when you can gain the same result, using entirely different (sub)systems and rules to get there.

For example, when the game system treads a permanent minion as something that is either a class feature (ex: Druid animal companion, Wizard familiar) or has to be "bought" via feat (ex: Squire, Torchbearer, Leadership) or WBL (ex: Ultimate Campaign Mass Combat system), then a permanent Planar Binding doesn't fit there. It infringes on other rules that are already established (ex: Leadership would actually allow only for a whopping 2 Barbazu at extremely high level)

Ah. I disagree that this is... a problem, I guess? One might argue that it's overpowered, but not that it's inherently invalid. Having multiple ways to achieve something is perfectly fine in a game system. It's only a problem when the game system is a "what-based" system rahter than a "how-based" system. That is, you're paying for end effects with the same resources no matter what, rather than having a system with multiple subsystems and resource sets to build characters with different mechanical ways to do things. BESM and M&M 3e are (in theory) "what-based." D&D and pretty much ANY class-based system, and GURPS as well, are "how-based."

Having multiple ways to acquire long-lasting or permanent minions isn't a problem; it's a deliberate design feature.

Thrallherd, Leadership, or just serial use of dominate monster, for instance.

Fly, being a Large half-dragon, and owning a flying carpet, for another instance.

[Remuko]

The issue here is, you are reading more into the spell than is there. You are assuming that the spell is naturally intended to interact with other spells not mentioned in its description. The spell really is as filled with DM interpretation as it appears to be in the PHB. Compiling a list of rules quotes from a dozen books doesn't speak to the intent, because you are trying to take the interpretations of dozens of writers and editors and claim that they somehow show intent for writers of the original spell. Except that can't possibly be the case (certainly not without a time machine).

At best, your quotes show a possible reading of how to interpret the spell consistently. The main issue you seem to be running into here is that your interpretation leans heavily into the consequence free area, which is counter to the spell description itself, and also problematic for game balance at many tables.

It also doesn't help that you make sweeping declarative statements like "Fiends don't get rescue teams," "Fiends must free themselves", and "shove these rule quotes in your DM's face". And then also try to say that you aren't trying to claim that DM's are RPing fiends wrong if they do those things.

You seem to have this weird chip on your shoulder regarding how you think things should be, and I can't tell if it's because of interactions you've had here, or if you are viewing all of the criticism of your argument through your personal lens of bad experiences with a DM in the past. Heck, it's very possible I'm misunderstanding your argument, so please clarify if I'm missing something.

i couldnt agree more with this if i tried.

[Rhedyn]

I roll a new character, create Ice Assassins of Boccob and murder his ass. Then I have them start making ice assassins of other gods and murder all of them and then I have them murder everything in the universe.

Lol no: https://holiviantales.wordpress.com/spirituality/deities/boccob/boccob-character-stats/

Portfolio Sense:
Boccob senses all magic use (spellcasting, item use, spell-like ability use, or magic item creation) seventeen weeks before it happens and retains the sensation for seventeen weeks after the event occurs. He has a similar ability to sense the discovery, recording, or sharing of any spell or bit of arcane knowledge. He likewise senses any prophecy or prediction of the future (whether accurate or not) and any event that alters the balance of good, evil, law, and chaos in the cosmology.

Good luck using any spell-based method to kill him when he knows about it 17 weeks ahead of time.

Try this thread on the topic: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?246676-Challenge-taking-down-Boccob

[Selion]

I always end up looking like a rule lawyering theorycrafter when I use rules to stop DMs from rule lawyering to nerf planar binding. As others said there is no way a splat book can change how a core spell is used and my rule lawyering just proved that the splat book in question did NOT in fact change how the core spell is used.


No no no no, you misunderstood. If you are fighting the DM your playstyle is distruptive, no matter what, unless your discomfort is shared along the table with other players. The DM is totally free to change the way a spell works, his job is to create a coherent world which give immersion and amusement to the players, rule zero nukes to ground everything else. If your table and the DM are fine with your playstyle there's nothing to prevent you to play that way

[RoboEmperor]

No no no no, you misunderstood. If you are fighting the DM your playstyle is distruptive, no matter what, unless your discomfort is shared along the table with other players. The DM is totally free to change the way a spell works, his job is to create a coherent world which give immersion and amusement to the players, rule zero nukes to ground everything else. If your table and the DM are fine with your playstyle there's nothing to prevent you to play that way

You're absolutely right which is why I place huge importance on the interview process. Full disclosure so the rule debate happens during the interview and not mid-campaign and if he has a problem with my build then we part ways.

[Rhedyn]

You're absolutely right which is why I place huge importance on the interview process. Full disclosure so the rule debate happens during the interview and not mid-campaign and if he has a problem with my build then we part ways.
That does mean you are more playing builds than playing in campaigns.

Doesn't seem great to me either, but you do you.

[Fizban]

You're absolutely right which is why I place huge importance on the interview process. Full disclosure so the rule debate happens during the interview and not mid-campaign and if he has a problem with my build then we part ways.
Essentially your argument boils down to "This is how I want Planar Binding to work, and any DM must agree with it because I asked before the game and I only joined the game because they agreed with it."

Yay?

I mean, you've already said you posted it just so you could reference it online (ever heard of google docs?), and you don't seem to care about the possibility of having to play in a game that doesn't run it exactly how you want it, so. . .

[magicalmagicman]

Essentially your argument boils down to "This is how I want Planar Binding to work, and any DM must agree with it because I asked before the game and I only joined the game because they agreed with it."

Yay?

I mean, you've already said you posted it just so you could reference it online (ever heard of google docs?), and you don't seem to care about the possibility of having to play in a game that doesn't run it exactly how you want it, so. . .

He doesn't seem to care about the possibility of having to play in a game where planar binding doesn't function as intended by it's creators. Just like how the vast majority of people won't play in your game where some amateur DM tried to house rule everything to the point it's no longer d&d and doesn't care about the possibility of playing the game as intended by its writers.

Yay?

[Selion]

He doesn't seem to care about the possibility of having to play in a game where planar binding doesn't function as intended by it's creators. Just like how the vast majority of people won't play in your game where some amateur DM tried to house rule everything to the point it's no longer d&d and doesn't care about the possibility of playing the game as intended by its writers.

Yay?

D&D is a game to be made in small, private groups. The aim is to have amusement together, not to play d&d as intended by it's creator. If other guys play and enjoy it and you cannot join them because you want to follow RAW you are free to do your own way, but if you don't find a group because you don't compromise, it's your social skills that you should question, not the rulebooks.

[gogogome]

Essentially your argument boils down to "This is how I want Planar Binding to work, and any DM must agree with it because I asked before the game and I only joined the game because they agreed with it."

Yay?

I mean, you've already said you posted it just so you could reference it online (ever heard of google docs?), and you don't seem to care about the possibility of having to play in a game that doesn't run it exactly how you want it, so. . .


Trolling
Any post or comment that, in the judgment of the Moderators, was made solely or primarily to incite angry responses and/or flames or attempts to disrupt a thread so that it becomes a flame war will be edited to remove the offending content and the poster issued an Infraction. If a thread is judged to have been started for this reason, it will be locked, and the poster issued an Infraction.

In particular, editing a quote of another user's post to insult the poster or to make the other user's words appear misleading, inflammatory, or insulting is considered trolling, and any such modified quotes will be removed and an Infraction issued.

We all know you're a scrub Fizban. You don't have to remind us everyday, but I suggest you don't troll.


D&D is a game to be made in small, private groups. The aim is to have amusement together, not to play d&d as intended by it's creator. If other guys play and enjoy it and you cannot join them because you want to follow RAW you are free to do your own way, but if you don't find a group because you don't compromise, it's your social skills that you should question, not the rulebooks.

I think it's commendable that RoboEmperor recognizes that his playstyle is not for everyone and uses the interview process to find a table where he'd fit in. If I was playing with a player who intends to make an entire build around one spell I'd appreciate it if we went over his character together before the game began and see if he made a mistake somewhere rather than tell him his character is illegal or he can't do the thing he wanted to do few months into the game. Why people are ragging on such behavior is beyond me.

And this isn't a RAW debate either. RoboEmperor has done an excellent job that the RAI of the spell is enslavement too. So this is not a RAW or RAI scenario, it's a house rule or no house rule scenario.

[magicalmagicman]

D&D is a game to be made in small, private groups. The aim is to have amusement together, not to play d&d as intended by it's creator. If other guys play and enjoy it and you cannot join them because you want to follow RAW you are free to do your own way, but if you don't find a group because you don't compromise, it's your social skills that you should question, not the rulebooks.

He's not rule lawyering a technicality like saying Shades can replicate any conjuration spell so i don't get why you keep saying he's a RAW munchkin.

[Fizban]

He doesn't seem to care about the possibility of having to play in a game where planar binding doesn't function as intended by it's creators.
Florian has already covered this, but I'll repeat it once for effect: the writers of the quotes being used are not the creators of Planar Binding. Splat books for 3.5 written by completely different authors years after the 3.0 version was written carry no weight as "it's creators."

First rule is, there is no RAW, only a DM reading the rules. There is no "intent of the writers" tying together over a hundred books by dozens of authors. There is however, one DMG (one PHB, and one MM), and what we know of the previous editions and how they were played before 3.0 was written by a much smaller number of authors. So which has more authority?

Wrong. The DM has the authority, and if you can't play by any reading other than your own, you'd best make yourself into a good enough DM to run the game for yourself.


I think it's commendable that RoboEmperor recognizes that his playstyle is not for everyone and uses the interview process to find a table where he'd fit in.
No one has a problem with how he wants to play the game. But I don't find it very commendable the he's decided to use the forum as a personal notepad, with a deliberately confrontational intro, then spent six pages arguing about it.

[gogogome]

Florian has already covered this, but I'll repeat it once for effect: the writers of the quotes being used are not the creators of Planar Binding. Splat books for 3.5 written by completely different authors years after the 3.0 version was written carry no weight as "it's creators."

First rule is, there is no RAW, only a DM reading the rules. There is no "intent of the writers" tying together over a hundred books by dozens of authors. There is however, one DMG (one PHB, and one MM), and what we know of the previous editions and how they were played before 3.0 was written by a much smaller number of authors. So which has more authority?

Wrong. The DM has the authority, and if you can't play by any reading other than your own, you'd best make yourself into a good enough DM to run the game for yourself.

Yes yes. We've all seen your tirade a million times about how d&d rules are just guidelines and how all the splat books are homebrew and how the DM gets to be a dictator of the world and call his mangled mess a d&d game and how any player using any d&d book to build a character is badwrongfun and should play the game blind with no preset build.

Stop hijacking threads to your off-topic tangent to get your jollies.

[magicalmagicman]

No one has a problem with how he wants to play the game. But I don't find it very commendable the he's decided to use the forum as a personal notepad, with a deliberately confrontational intro, then spent six pages arguing about it.

You see the view count of this thread? It's because people are having fun participating in it. I for one am very happy he made this thread. If you don't like it then stop reading the thread and stop posting. You're the only one with a problem here.

[Selion]

He's not rule lawyering a technicality like saying Shades can replicate any conjuration spell so i don't get why you keep saying he's a RAW munchkin.

So let's say it's RAI, my point doesn't change at all. The same thing would apply fighting another player's playstyle. Suppose he finds a DM which agrees with his way to read rules and lets him play his mazinga whatever with a matrioska of summoned and polymorphed beings, another player doesn't like it and builds purposely his character against that player, min-maxing banishment spells and sending to home whatever he summons, or stepping on magic circles whenever he summons something. Rulewise it would be totally legit, but I would dislike even that playstyle, unless all the table is fine with this duel between players and they have fun with it, there is not point in ruining the gaming experience to other players or to the DM, any table plays the way its players like, there is not a price to whom sticks better with the rules, the same way there is not a price to whom plays like he were on an acting drama applying Stanislavski's system to D&D, different playstyles could coexist in the same table and if he wants to play that... thing :) ... he should just ask his friends if they are fine with it, without pointing on rulebooks or forum discussions.

[Fizban]

I suppose I should have said it more plainly the first time: pre-game discusssion, or what RoboEmperor is calling the interview process, is important- so important that I don't find its statement to be a revelation.

However, I was missing a bit from RoboEmperor's own posts- that it seems their valuing of the interview has come as a direct result of past experiences with Planar Binding. On this page I had read Selion describing why this sort of argument would be disruptive for a game, Robo saying that's why the interview is important, and so I wonder why that's something new, but I'd missed that they'd explained that down the bottom of last page. So that was a poorly chosen response, because learning from that experience is indeed commendable.

[gogogome]

I think the problem here is that RoboEmperor's tone does not match his conduct. In the first post he says things like "shove this in the DM's face" but when he describes his actual conduct it's "Get the Planar Binding rulings figured out before the game begins" and if there is no problem "shut up and don't correct the DM in-game especially regarding fiend roleplay." He says he uses the quotes on the first page during the interview session to educate the DM how planar binding is supposed to work and not as a weapon to throw in a DM's face mid campaign which contradicts his OP's tone which in turn caused people to accuse RoboEmperor of disrupting games with rule lawyering which in turn caused RoboEmperor to repeat the same things over and over again which in turn confused everyone involved because his actions don't match his OP's tone.

I recommend the OP to learn from this and not take such an antagonistic tone in the first post next time to avoid this confusion.

[Crake]

Wrong. The DM has the authority, and if you can't play by any reading other than your own, you'd best make yourself into a good enough DM to run the game for yourself.

I had a good kek over this line, because it basically sums up why I DM 90% of the games I participate in.

[Psyren]

I think the problem here is that RoboEmperor's tone does not match his conduct. In the first post he says things like "shove this in the DM's face" but when he describes his actual conduct it's "Get the Planar Binding rulings figured out before the game begins" and if there is no problem "shut up and don't correct the DM in-game especially regarding fiend roleplay." He says he uses the quotes on the first page during the interview session to educate the DM how planar binding is supposed to work and not as a weapon to throw in a DM's face mid campaign which contradicts his OP's tone which in turn caused people to accuse RoboEmperor of disrupting games with rule lawyering which in turn caused RoboEmperor to repeat the same things over and over again which in turn confused everyone involved because his actions don't match his OP's tone.

I recommend the OP to learn from this and not take such an antagonistic tone in the first post next time to avoid this confusion.

I second this recommendation.

[Selion]

I think the problem here is that RoboEmperor's tone does not match his conduct. In the first post he says things like "shove this in the DM's face" but when he describes his actual conduct it's "Get the Planar Binding rulings figured out before the game begins" and if there is no problem "shut up and don't correct the DM in-game especially regarding fiend roleplay." He says he uses the quotes on the first page during the interview session to educate the DM how planar binding is supposed to work and not as a weapon to throw in a DM's face mid campaign which contradicts his OP's tone which in turn caused people to accuse RoboEmperor of disrupting games with rule lawyering which in turn caused RoboEmperor to repeat the same things over and over again which in turn confused everyone involved because his actions don't match his OP's tone.

I recommend the OP to learn from this and not take such an antagonistic tone in the first post next time to avoid this confusion.

You are probably right, he even gave nice advices to create consequences on a pit lord enslavement, he knows his stuff. There is nothing wrong in talking about a rule before the campaign, but it's strange that this would be a condition to join it. Furthermore, his character is... weird... (very creative, though), a DM could stop his build mid campaign anyway house ruling a single option or negating the combo. Sometimes a good interpretation can save a strange character concept and make it accepted by other players, i just say it's useless pointing to rules, because the whole issue is not about rules.

[RoboEmperor]

You are probably right, he even gave nice advices to create consequences on a pit lord enslavement, he knows his stuff. There is nothing wrong in talking about a rule before the campaign, but it's strange that this would be a condition to join it. Furthermore, his character is... weird... (very creative, though), a DM could stop his build mid campaign anyway house ruling a single option or negating the combo. Sometimes a good interpretation can save a strange character concept and make it accepted by other players, i just say it's useless pointing to rules, because the whole issue is not about rules.

Have you heard of the game Neverwinter Nights? I loved that game because of it's summoning system. You summon one creature for 24 hours and then have it kill everything while you buff and heal it. This is the only playstyle I love in any video game. Create a powerful expendable monster and support it while it kills stuff. No other video game has this playstyle which is why I turned to d&d.

The reason I don't play RTS is because I like controlling only 1 character, not an army. Furthermore I like RPGs.

So the reason I play d&d is because it's an RPG and I can play a creator/summoner/caller of a powerful creature. If you take one or the other away I lose my reason to play the game which is why I don't play the game if the DM wants me to play a blaster spellcaster or a BFC spellcaster.

I also like customization. A lot. To the point I only play sandbox video games because I can beat the game my way, with my style, which is why I love building characters in 3.5 a lot. So much customization options even after all these years I am still amazed how I can customize a part I don't like with something I do like.

I prefer constructs over fiends but 100% of my attempts at making a construct master failed, which is why Planar Binding is the only thing in the entire game that lets me play the way I want to.

[Fizban]

I had a good kek over this line, because it basically sums up why I DM 90% of the games I participate in.
I did basically commit a hostile takeover of a dnd group because I (and most of the players) were dissatisfied with the DM's style. I apologized later because I did feel a bit bad about it, but they weren't too broken up. It also helps that the vast majority of people don't want to DM (not even me really, I'd rather be a player too), so if you want to take the job to make sure it's done right, there's little competition. Just gotta make sure your players know how you're gonna run it.

[Oblivionsmurf]

Have you heard of the game Neverwinter Nights? I loved that game because of it's summoning system. You summon one creature for 24 hours and then have it kill everything while you buff and heal it. This is the only playstyle I love in any video game. Create a powerful expendable monster and support it while it kills stuff. No other video game has this playstyle which is why I turned to d&d.

The reason I don't play RTS is because I like controlling only 1 character, not an army. Furthermore I like RPGs.

We'll agree to disagree on the interpretation of FCII's sidebar, but I assume this is the only reason why you would not Planar Bind a host of creatures at once (beyond also not wanting to break your game)? I can't see any RAW prohibitions against you (or DM controlled opponents) doing so.

Separately, you're using the following excerpt from Tome of Magic to justify servitude for a fixed number of days not being an open ended task:


The door to this room is locked (Open Lock DC 35). Inside is a powerful balor demon, forced to serve the Votaries for five hundred years by means of a carefully negotiated greater planar binding spell. Its duties consist of torturing captives and learning whatever facts it can for Crestian (see area 13). The demon’s victims rarely last for long as it immolates them in its excitement. The balor resents its binding, so it does what it can to betray and disrupt its master’s plans. If the PCs do not immediately attack the demon and attempt to parlay first, it quickly divulges all it knows about Crestian and the Votaries, warning the characters that the lich lord has a sphere of annihilation.

The wording of Planar Binding provides:


If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete though its own actions (such as “Wait here” or “Defend this area against attack”), the spell remains in effect for a maximum of one day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free. Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions.

I assume you would say that:


the mistake with the above commands was not fixing a duration for the task (e.g. wait here for one million years);

if you did assign such a duration, even one far in excess of one day per caster level, the task would no longer be open-ended; and

the words 'the creature cannot complete through its own actions' only refer tasks that do not have a fixed end-date, so any end-date for a particular task (no matter how extreme) now means the creature can complete the task through its own actions, even if that task is as broad as 'serve me', or the examples identified above?


Finally, what is your authority for Surge of Fortune allowing automatic success in an opposed Charisma check? The Rules Compendium similarly provides (at page 29):


To make a check, roll 1d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. The higher the result, the better. Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 isn’t an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 isn’t an automatic failure.

It goes on to provide (at page 30):


Sometimes you try to do something to which no specific skill applies. In these cases, you make an ability check by rolling and adding the appropriate ability modifier. Essentially, you’re making an untrained skill check.

[RoboEmperor]

We'll agree to disagree on the interpretation of FCII's sidebar, but I assume this is the only reason why you would not Planar Bind a host of creatures at once (beyond also not wanting to break your game)? I can't see any RAW prohibitions against you (or DM controlled opponents) doing so.

You're correct. There is no limit to how many outsiders you can bind at once. Why it's lauded as one of the most game breaking spells in the game.


Separately, you're using the following excerpt from Tome of Magic to justify servitude for a fixed number of days not being an open ended task:

The wording of Planar Binding provides:

I assume you would say that:


the mistake with the above commands was not fixing a duration for the task (e.g. wait here for one million years);

if you did assign such a duration, even one far in excess of one day per caster level, the task would no longer be open-ended; and

the words 'the creature cannot complete through its own actions' only refer tasks that do not have a fixed end-date, so any end-date for a particular task (no matter how extreme) now means the creature can complete the task through its own actions, even if that task is as broad as 'serve me', or the examples identified above?


I guess. There's also the oxford english dictionary definition: "open ended: having no determined limit or boundary." A set time limit is a determined limit or boundary. People debated this for a while when i was learning how to use Planar Binding but I think that quote pretty much settles the matter.


Finally, what is your authority for Surge of Fortune allowing automatic success in an opposed Charisma check? The Rules Compendium similarly provides (at page 29):


To make a check, roll 1d20 and add the appropriate modifiers. The higher the result, the better. Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 isn’t an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 isn’t an automatic failure.

It goes on to provide (at page 30):


Sometimes you try to do something to which no specific skill applies. In these cases, you make an ability check by rolling and adding the appropriate ability modifier. Essentially, you’re making an untrained skill check.

Lets say a creature has 22 charisma. So +6. I have +7 because of stuff like circlet of persuasion, my own charisma, eagle's splendor, etc. With Surge of Fortune my check is 27 100% of the time. No matter what the creature rolls, even if he rolls a natural 20, he can only get 26, and since I'm never gonna roll a 1 this is a 100% success rate. You probably missed the part where I said higher charisma modifier than the creature.

There's also enervating the outsider but I'm against that. A debuffed outsider is a useless outsider for that day and a character who specializes in planar binding should be able to bind an outsider on the go.

[Oblivionsmurf]

I guess. There's also the oxford english dictionary definition: "open ended: having no determined limit or boundary." A set time limit is a determined limit or boundary. People debated this for a while when i was learning how to use Planar Binding but I think that quote pretty much settles the matter.


What quote? Your dictionary quote, or the wording of the spell?

[Crake]

I guess. There's also the oxford english dictionary definition: "open ended: having no determined limit or boundary." A set time limit is a determined limit or boundary. People debated this for a while when i was learning how to use Planar Binding but I think that quote pretty much settles the matter.

To be fair, the clause in planar binding mentions it as a task the bound creature cannot complete of it's own volition. Creatures can't progress time any faster, they have no control over the completion of the task, thus it is considered open ended. That said, note that the entry in tome of magic stated that the planar binding was very carefully worded. This alone implies it's not that simple, there must have been something else in the planar binding clause that resulted in the 500 years of servitude. Perhaps it was something like "Torture 30 billion souls, to a maximum served time of 500 years". The torturing of 30 billion souls is certainly a non-open ended task, and something the fiend's capabilities enable him to progress at his own rate. The addition of the "maximum of 500 years" clause seems a bid odd for something like that though. Perhaps the fiend considered it an unreasonable request without the maximum time served.

Either way, it's not as simple as "Serve me for 500 years". Also note that the fiend isn't serving the caster's whim, he's doing a specific task, and is tasked to do it for 500 years.


What quote? Your dictionary quote, or the wording of the spell?

He's talking about a quote from tome of magic.

[RoboEmperor]

To be fair, the clause in planar binding mentions it as a task the bound creature cannot complete of it's own volition. Creatures can't progress time any faster, they have no control over the completion of the task, thus it is considered open ended. That said, note that the entry in tome of magic stated that the planar binding was very carefully worded. This alone implies it's not that simple, there must have been something else in the planar binding clause that resulted in the 500 years of servitude. Perhaps it was something like "Torture 30 billion souls, to a maximum served time of 500 years". The torturing of 30 billion souls is certainly a non-open ended task, and something the fiend's capabilities enable him to progress at his own rate. The addition of the "maximum of 500 years" clause seems a bid odd for something like that though. Perhaps the fiend considered it an unreasonable request without the maximum time served.

Either way, it's not as simple as "Serve me for 500 years". Also note that the fiend isn't serving the caster's whim, he's doing a specific task, and is tasked to do it for 500 years.

I like the way you think. You'd make a fine lawyer. In any case, a lawyer will always get what he wants so trivial details like that don't matter much.

In all honesty though, I don't think any of this matters because the penalty for giving an open-ended task is an immediate chance to escape and the special calling diagram with Dimensional Anchor cast gives the outsider a literal 0% chance to escape, so giving him an immediate 1000 chances of escapes won't matter. He can't escape via SR, he can't escape via teleport, so in the above example, all he can do is roll a 1d20+6 against a DC 15 + 7 (assuming CL 15) + 7 (cha mod) = 29 charisma check, which is impossible to beat even on a natural 20, and as Oblivionsmurf pointed out a natural 20 is not an automatic success.

[Oblivionsmurf]

I like the way you think. You'd make a fine lawyer. In any case, a lawyer will always get what he wants so trivial details like that don't matter much.

In all honesty though, I don't think any of this matters because the penalty for giving an open-ended task is an immediate chance to escape and the special calling diagram with Dimensional Anchor cast gives the outsider a literal 0% chance to escape, so giving him an immediate 1000 chances of escapes won't matter. He can't escape via SR, he can't escape via teleport, so in the above example, all he can do is roll a 1d20+6 against a DC 15 + 7 (assuming CL 15) + 7 (cha mod) = 29 charisma check, which is impossible to beat even on a natural 20, and as Oblivionsmurf pointed out a natural 20 is not an automatic success.

It matters because we've now got a maximum cap on the duration of the spell (1 day / caster level).

Also, the creature can still win its opposed Charisma check against you, because it is making two (and you only have one Surge of Fortune active at the time you assign the Task).

[RoboEmperor]

It matters because we've now got a maximum cap on the duration of the spell (1 day / caster level).

Also, the creature can still win its opposed Charisma check against you, because it is making two (and you only have one Surge of Fortune active at the time you assign the Task).

1. It's not an opposed charisma check it's a charisma check against a DC (and I did my math wrong. In the example I used the DC should be 34 not 29)
2. There is no maximum cap on duration. If the command is "build a castle" and building the castle takes 1000 years then the creature is bound to build the castle for 1000 years.
3. You can have as many Surge of Fortunes as you want at any time. When multiple Surge of Fortunes are cast on you only the latest one is in effect and the earlier ones are inactive, but when you active the natural 20 part of the spell the latest effect ends and one of the previous instances now become active.


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.


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.

At any point before the spell expires, you can channel some of its remaining power into a single instant of perfect fortune as an immediate action. The result of the next attack roll, saving throw, skill check, ability check, or spell penetration check you attempt is treated as a natural 20, as long as it occurs within 1 round of the time you invoked this power. (If you use it for an attack roll, you must still roll to confirm the critical hit normally). Using this option instantly ends the spell.

Same Effect with Differing Results

The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant while the final spell in the series lasts.

[Oblivionsmurf]

1. It's not an opposed charisma check it's a charisma check against a DC (and I did my math wrong. In the example I used the DC should be 34 not 29)

Agree.


2. There is no maximum cap on duration. If the command is "build a castle" and building the castle takes 1000 years then the creature is bound to build the castle for 1000 years.

Agree because this is not an open-ended task. However, 'serve me' or similar would be.


3. You can have as many Surge of Fortunes you want at any time. When multiple Surge of Fortunes are cast on you only the latest one is in effect and the earlier ones are inactive, but when you active the natural 20 part of the spell the latest effect ends and one of the previous instances now become active.

I presume you are correct that you can have multiple Surges of Fortune active, but source?

Separately, you can't activate both Surges concurrently, which is what you would need to do. When you make your open-ended request, it applies to your next roll; however, the creature makes two rolls (one opposed Charisma check, and one attempt to break free).

In any event, it doesn't matter, because the attempt to break free isn't opposed by you, it's opposed by DC 15 + ½ your caster level + your Cha modifier.

I should add, I am not disputing that Planar Binding is a fantastic (overpowered) spell; I just don't think it's quite as good as you do.

[RoboEmperor]

I should add, I am not disputing that Planar Binding is a fantastic (overpowered) spell; I just don't think it's quite as good as you do.

I think the spell is a way to get free powerful outsiders as slaves, the limit of which is how well you can control/maintain the slavery on all of them and if you make one mistake you're dead but if you don't make any mistakes ever you get free minions.

If you think I claimed "I can bind 1000 outsiders for 500 years each" you're mistaken. I recognize that the ToM quote is from Vecna and I think a normal PC can only bind an outsider for 1day/CL without it becoming an unreasonable command and if you want longer service you need to constantly re-bind the same creature over and over again.

My command with planar binding is always "you must serve me unquestioningly for (my caster level) days as a loyal minion and voluntarily accept new bindings from me whenever I want during those (caster level) days" and I target outsiders who are either barely above animals, naturally subservient or both, and are incapable of planar travel like Ravids, Steel Predators, and Ember Guards. And my first commands to my new minion is a laundry list of restrictions like "don't try to subvert me"

Those three are jokes but Paeliryons, my go-to Greater Planar Binding outsider because I love blasting and Paeliryons are the most blastiest creature in all of d&d, are the dangerous ones because they are smart, crafty, very intelligent, and in fact do information brokering for a living. Their intelligence bothered me to the point I've recently decided to use Simulacra of them instead of actually binding them but back when I did bind them I'd make them incapable of acting like anything other than a dumb brute and prevent them from communicating with anyone other than me even if it means they can no longer use their Belittle Su ability.

[Crake]

One thing I did notice though, robo, regarding re-binding the same fiend over and over: you mention having the fiend walk back into the circle voluntarily, however the circle can only be used to trap a fiend that has been called into it:


When focused inward, the spell binds a nongood called creature

Personally, I'm quite fond of the use of a magic circle used to trap unsuspecting fiends who walk into it (see: supernatural tv series), but it's not something supported by the game by default. Thus, once the fiend's service is over, it's a) immediately sent back unless you stop it by use of dimensional anchor or the like, and b) is unbound and free to act as it wishes. Unless you managed to get it's proper name, it's unlikely you'll be able to bind the fiend again.

As a side note: When you bind fiends, do you actually word out the task word for word for the DM? Or do you say "this is the rough gist of the task I want, and my character words it perfectly to avoid loopholes"?

[RoboEmperor]

One thing I did notice though, robo, regarding re-binding the same fiend over and over: you mention having the fiend walk back into the circle voluntarily, however the circle can only be used to trap a fiend that has been called into it:

I rebind them by making them voluntarily fail a saving throw against another planar binding.


As a side note: When you bind fiends, do you actually word out the task word for word for the DM? Or do you say "this is the rough gist of the task I want, and my character words it perfectly to avoid loopholes"?

All of the above.
I first tell my DM that I either use Telepathy (with an Imp acting as my telephone) or speak Infernal because Infernal is exact and Telepathy uses no languages, meaning my will is relayed perfectly with no loop holes.
Then i say my command in english so the DM understands what I'm saying.
And either the DM doesn't care because he knows he can't beat me, or he furrows his brow as he tries to figure out a way the creature can subvert my instructions when he can't use English Synonyms to screw me over.

[RoboEmperor]

See "You must serve me unquestioningly" would be almost universally an unreasonable command in my games, because it doesn't exclude the possibility of suicidal commands, likewise, if freedom is the reward, then including the possibility to not be free afterwards would mean that there is no reward at all, again, unreasonable.

The reward is "freedom from the cage for a few days" and "avoiding death". I know you disagree with me whether spells break the magic circle or not but it is the general consensus it doesn't (see Tippy's way of planar binding) so I would be free to murder the poor sap.

If you were my DM and you said that unquestioningly is unreasonable I would add in language from Charm Person.
"An affected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders, but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing."
Except the guy must do the very dangerous thing no matter what, and we'd go into extensive detail of what a "harmful order is"


Of course, saying that, the fiend might interpret "serve me unquestioningly" as "serve me for food" and immediately begin attacking you to carve you up for dinner. At that point, saying "dont try to subvert me" won't help, because the clause hasn't been interpreted as "follow my commands", and the "as a loyal minion" taken to mean serve you to his pre-existing master. A particularly devious fiend might even pretend to be bound by your interpretation, while waiting for an opportunity to catch you off guard and rip you apart to serve it's own interpretation of the binding task.

Using Infernal or Telepathy so english synonyms or alternate meanings of the word "serve' wouldn't work.

edit: We are in an edit/delete war XD

[Florian]

My command with planar binding is always "you must serve me unquestioningly for (my caster level) days as a loyal minion and voluntarily accept new bindings from me whenever I want during those (caster level) days" and I target outsiders who are either barely above animals, naturally subservient or both, and are incapable of planar travel like Ravids, Steel Predators, and Ember Guards. And my first commands to my new minion is a laundry list of restrictions like "don't try to subvert me"

Won´t work for multiple reasons, starting with "unreasonable command", freedom being the reward for the service and the already mentioned unresolved issue of how you get the outsider into the circle in the first place (when it cannot plane shift on its own), which is basically the same magic that will send the creature back afterwards, because contract fulfilled.

[Crake]

I rebind them by making them voluntarily fail a saving throw against another planar binding.



All of the above.
I first tell my DM that I either use Telepathy (with an Imp acting as my telephone) or speak Infernal because Infernal is exact and Telepathy uses no languages, meaning my will is relayed perfectly with no loop holes.
Then i say my command in english so the DM understands what I'm saying.
And either the DM doesn't care because he knows he can't beat me, or he furrows his brow as he tries to figure out a way the creature can subvert my instructions when he can't use English Synonyms to screw me over.

Well, firstly, not all creatures speak infernal, and just because infernal is exact, that doesn't mean it can't have loopholes, devils find looholes all the time. Secondly telepathy, by default, requires that the reciever have a language, thus we must assume that the communication is in words, not just vauge concepts, so trying to use that method to have a perfectly worded outcome isn't going to work flawlessly, and because you're going through up to 2 translation processes that you aren't acutely in control of (telepathy to the imp, then infernal to the subject), the possibility for failure becomes entirely up to the GM, with you losing any sense of control, because you gave it all up in the translation process.

You don't have final say in whether that trick works or not, if you want to be absolutely sure you aren't gonna get screwed, your only real bet is to word the planar binding task to the best of your ability, going full on lawyer, and hope your DM can't find a loophole in your binding clause, but it doesn't sound like you're willing to put in that effort.

[RoboEmperor]

Won´t work for multiple reasons, starting with "unreasonable command", freedom being the reward for the service and the already mentioned unresolved issue of how you get the outsider into the circle in the first place (when it cannot plane shift on its own), which is basically the same magic that will send the creature back afterwards, because contract fulfilled.

Dimensional Anchor will thwart the return effect. And as I mentioned the payment is freedom from the cage and avoiding death, not true freedom. If you were given the option of being let out of a cage for 10 days to work like a slave and then return to the cage OR die right here right now you'd choose work unless your idealism makes you want to rather die than be a slave.

Like Angels. Pretty sure angels will choose death over slavery. But not fiends or outsiders barely more intelligent than animals.


Well, firstly, not all creatures speak infernal, and just because infernal is exact, that doesn't mean it can't have loopholes, devils find looholes all the time.

Fair point but the loop holes are gonna be in the form of "It technically doesn't say I can't ____" NOT from using alternate meanings of the word serve. If I can't use infernal I use Infernal to get an Imp and then use him as my telephone.


Secondly telepathy, by default, requires that the reciever have a language, thus we must assume that the communication is in words, not just vauge concepts, so trying to use that method to have a perfectly worded outcome isn't going to work flawlessly, and because you're going through up to 2 translation processes that you aren't acutely in control of (telepathy to the imp, then infernal to the subject), the possibility for failure becomes entirely up to the GM, with you losing any sense of control, because you gave it all up in the translation process.


You forge a telepathic bond among yourself and a number of willing creatures, each of which must have an Intelligence score of 3 or higher. Each creature included in the link is linked to all the others. The creatures can communicate telepathically through the bond regardless of language. No special power or influence is established as a result of the bond. Once the bond is formed, it works over any distance (although not from one plane to another).

I'm sure there's a rule that directly says telepathy overcomes language barriers. The text in Telepathic Bond was the only one on the top of my head.

Telepathy requires the creature to be able to speak a language meaning that it must be capable of communication. You don't actually use a language. The language restriction is there so you can't communicate with animals with telepathy, or trees.

edit:There's also just using Infernal + Tongues. The translated effect will be so lawyer-exact you can't use english HOMONYMS (not synonyms, my bad, i always think the two are the same) to thwart me.

edit2: I DON'T mind DMs finding loopholes in my commands and screwing me over. i DO mind DMs using HOMONYMS like you did with the alternate meanings of the word serve to screw me over which is the precise reason why I switched to Infernal and Telepathy.

[Crake]

Dimensional Anchor will thwart the return effect. And as I mentioned the payment is freedom from the cage and avoiding death, not true freedom. If you were given the option of being let out of a cage for 10 days to work like a slave and then return to the cage OR die right here right now you'd choose work unless your idealism makes you want to rather die than be a slave.

Like Angels. Pretty sure angels will choose death over slavery. But not fiends or outsiders barely more intelligent than animals.



Fair point but the loop holes are gonna be in the form of "It technically doesn't say I can't ____" NOT from using alternate meanings of the word serve. If I can't use infernal I use Infernal to get an Imp and then use him as my telephone.





I'm sure there's a rule that directly says telepathy overcomes language barriers. The text in Telepathic Bond was the only one on the top of my head.

Telepathy requires the creature to be able to speak a language meaning that it must be capable of communication. You don't actually use a language. The language restriction is there so you can't communicate with animals with telepathy, or trees.

edit:There's also just using Infernal + Tongues. The translated effect will be so lawyer-exact you can't use english HOMONYMS (not synonyms, my bad, i always think the two are the same) to thwart me.

edit2: I DON'T mind DMs finding loopholes in my commands and screwing me over. i DO mind DMs using HOMONYMS like you did with the alternate meanings of the word serve to screw me over.

Telepathy requires a language, was my point. That must mean that telepathy has, to a degree, some built in translation method, as it cannot communicate with a creature that has no language, since it has no translation target. Speaking infernal + tongues does help bypass this barrirer though. And sure, even if we don't use homonyms, then your "standard clause" simply becomes unreasonable (obey unquestioningly = possible suicidal orders, accept future bindings = reward of freedom is no longer a reward).

Also, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up imps, they don't have telepathy, unless you meant telepathy to the imp... then it speaks infernal? But you can just speak infernal yourself, not sure. I'm assuming you never noticed that Imps don't actually have the Baatezu subtype, and thus don't get telepathy.

[RoboEmperor]

Telepathy requires a language, was my point. That must mean that telepathy has, to a degree, some built in translation method, as it cannot communicate with a creature that has no language, since it has no translation target. Speaking infernal + tongues does help bypass this barrirer though. And sure, even if we don't use homonyms, then your "standard clause" simply becomes unreasonable (obey unquestioningly = possible suicidal orders, accept future bindings = reward of freedom is no longer a reward).

You missed me saying that I would add the "Charm Person" clause of "no suicidal or obviously harmful orders" while we were editing/deleting posts. And only when dealing with intelligent outsiders. Ravids, Steel Predators, and Ember Guards are too dumb to know to add in a clause like that.

I always thought Telepathy communicates via "feelings" instead of words. Like **** you in 20 different languages all stimulate the identical cognition/feeling thing in your brain so Telepathy skips the step of needing a language to communicate that. But this is not RAW, this is real world whatever so if you were my DM I would not question your ruling about it acting like a Tongues spell.


Also, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up imps, they don't have telepathy, unless you meant telepathy to the imp... then it speaks infernal? But you can just speak infernal yourself, not sure. I'm assuming you never noticed that Imps don't actually have the Baatezu subtype, and thus don't get telepathy.

Huh, you're right. Wow, I've done some illegal things. Not too illegal, the only time I used Imps as a telephone was with Steel Predators (Ravids are too dumb to play lawyer so common is fine). Oh well, I'll just use Bearded Devils while I scavenge all the outsiders for a better replacement... Yuck. I don't want to sit next to a Bearded Devil 24/7. Blech. Maybe I can force it to take a bath and brush its teeth, and eat mint.

QQ

edit:Found two replacements, Kalabon and Spined Devil. Both are small. Kalabon has 4 int but is butt ugly, Spined Devils have int 8 and their monster entry directly says they are dim-witted.

I'm a go with Spined Devil so replace "Imp" from this entire thread with Spinagon.

[Florian]

@Robo:

Have you considered back-porting the PF Diabolist PrC (Paths of Prestige version, not Book of the Damned)? That's my backbone for any calling-focused build, including an Imp companion that uses the animal companion advancement and gains some power, including telepathy and further SLA. Gotta love the capstone of that PrC: Call as a move action, bind as a standard action. Done.

[Quertus]

I've only made it through page 1 so far, but I'm replying now since there's a limit to how many posts you can quote.


Especially when the RAW is God crowd ignores the same sort of sources (example encounters, statblocks, advice on spell usage, etc) whenever it's convenient.

We don't need people to tell us what RAW they've found. We need people to take responsibility for their games instead of pretending they're slaves to RAW.

For the first paragraph, I'm curious what makes you say that.

For the second, while I don't necessarily disagree, I think 1) too many idiots hide behind "but it's the rules" for their incorrect interpretations; 2) many people, like, clearly, the OP, want to know up front the ways that the GM is deviating from the rules before it ****s over their build.


If you're gonna house rule then say you're house ruling but don't try to pass your house rule off as RAW or even RAI because it's not. That's the point of this thread. To shut these DMs up and make them admit they're house ruling.

Rock on. Tis a noble cause.


Composition Fallacy - that because a given NPC organization or campaign setting used Planar Binding in a certain way, that way should be broadly applicable to any use by the PCs too.

just because a bunch of elite followers of Vecna were able to negotiate some pretty advantageous terms with such a creature, that any PC should be capable of the same. ... How they pulled it off is much less relevant than the fact that their success can't really be extrapolated to any party.

Just because NPCs (and villains/antagonists especially) can perform a certain act or get a certain result from a given act, it doesn't mean the PCs should also.

I just wanna say that, assuming the PCs are clever enough to get the power, backing, leverage, whatever, that they should be pulling off feats far better than those that lowly NPCs managed.

Be a fan of your PCs.


I mean, have you ever had a DM who wouldn't say, "Okay, but I don't care what the RAW say; I'm running it my way," if they honestly disliked the RAW?

I have.

Just because you dislike a rule doesn't mean that you have to change it.

Too many idiots change everything that they dislike with no consideration for the consequences of those changes. See "low wealth 3e" as one the most obvious examples.


You shouldn't do this to your DM regardless.

The text also talks about refusing service, escaping, or else promising service in exchange for freedom. Also "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. "

I write this more for the sake of other readers than the O.P., who seems to have taken an adversarial stance. The reality is there are two sides, and shoving 1 side down our throats or the DM's throat won't make me believe or even pay attention. Consider this a pre-emptive "Yeah no" to arguments that fail to address the entire text rather than only parts of it.

So, there are multiple parts to the spell description, sure.

And there are two (or more) sides on how to interpret RAW.

At least one of those sides is demonstrably wrong.

This thread is that demonstration.

Now, if you have RAW/RAI evidence that one or more of the other side's claims are wrong, too, then that would be a valuable contribution to this thread.


I'm disputing that every single use we see of it from an NPC is for the players.

It's like how in several sourcebooks you see some lich or other villain used a Wish to do something that is clearly outside the safe bounds. When your PC tries it, expecting the exact same result regardless of extenuating circumstances isn't really reasonable.

The PCs should be doing cooler things than the NPCs.

Sure, the wish might backfire horribly. And that's fine. But it might also do something as cool as or cooler than what that lowly NPC did.

Be a fan of the PCs.

[Crake]

The PCs should be doing cooler things than the NPCs.

Sure, the wish might backfire horribly. And that's fine. But it might also do something as cool as or cooler than what that lowly NPC did.

Be a fan of the PCs.

I agree with this.... If the thing in question actually happened in game. If it's a reference in a book, then I say it doesn't count. An anecdote from a book that doesn't even really focus on the sort of magic in question shouldn't force the DM to allow such things just because "these NPCs did it", after all, they aren't actually npcs. They aren't characters in the game, at least not until the DM puts them in his game. Sure, the PCs should be doing cooler things than NPCs, but only those that the DM actually includes.

[fallensavior]

"Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. "

Unreasonable is pretty open to interpretation. I'm sure after being abducted and restrained I would find almost any command unreasonable.

Unless it's something I was going to do anyway. Which is why people should never allow Planar Binding to perform a service against the called outsider's alignment.

Therefore it's not slavery.

Caster: "Hey demon, you wanna slaughter some innocents for me?"
Demon: "Sure, I was gonna hit three villages before lunch anyway."

Caster: "Hey angel, you wanna slaughter some innocents for me?"
Angel: "Never! Not for all the gold in the multiverse, you villain!"


the DM doesn't care because he knows he can't beat me

This seems like the wrong mindset for this game.

[RoboEmperor]

@Robo:

Have you considered back-porting the PF Diabolist PrC (Paths of Prestige version, not Book of the Damned)? That's my backbone for any calling-focused build, including an Imp companion that uses the animal companion advancement and gains some power, including telepathy and further SLA. Gotta love the capstone of that PrC: Call as a move action, bind as a standard action. Done.

I don't play Pathfinder so I wouldn't know anything about that. With the number of books I use on my character including pathfinder books too might be too much. It's hard enough as it is to find a group that's ok with you not playing a standard spellcaster. Finding a DM that also allows cross platform material might be too much.

But then again almost every single DM I've come across adds PF material in the form of "1 feat every odd level" and "sorcerer bloodlines".


Therefore it's not slavery.

I agree you can't enslave Angels. But Fiends will do good if it spares their life. The payment for planar binding is "life" because if they refuse you're gonna murder them. Angels will rather die than help a slaver, fiends don't. Forcing people to work for you under threat of death is slavery. I refer you to quote #6.

If you want to bind an angel you either gotta mindrape it first or your cause better be damn good and even then I doubt you can avoid paying the angel amounts of gold simliar to planar ally.


This seems like the wrong mindset for this game.

DMs are more interested in playing the game than play lawyer with me so instead of spending hours trying to find a loophole in my commands they just give up out lawyering me and play the game. I wouldn't be in their game if they had a problem with me using a Gargantuan Animated Object/Steel Predator/Paeliryon 24/7.


For the second, while I don't necessarily disagree, I think 1) too many idiots hide behind "but it's the rules" for their incorrect interpretations; 2) many people, like, clearly, the OP, want to know up front the ways that the GM is deviating from the rules before it ****s over their build.

Finally, someone who understands me.

[Zanos]

Caster: "Hey angel, you wanna slaughter some innocents for me?"
Angel: "Never! Not for all the gold in the multiverse, you villain!"
Depends, I guess, on what you're doing. Even in Evil campaigns you generally run up against plenty of Evil causes that oppose you. Enlsaving an Angel to purge cultists of Demogorgon or want to slaughter everyone in the world probably isn't a rough ask. That's what the cha check is for anyway, forcing your will on the outsider via the spell.

[Malphegor]

This thread is reminding me why I prefer Fiendbinder prc’s rules on binding fiends (which could easily be extended to other extraplanar beings imo). Just research their truename, then pronounce it clearly and they’ll obey. It’s clear cut magical enslavement, they cannot hurt the summoner, and even if they break free the fluff claims they won’t attempt to attack the summoner lest they be bound again (on the basis that whilst bound in this manner they can die for real). No fuss, just say their name and bam, they’re there.

Plus you can summon as many as (and for as long as you like) you have the time and money to research the names of. Just that it takes a action per bound fiend to command them so I guess most would just sit around playing cards when you’re in combat if they don’t want to fight.

[Quertus]

Pages 2-3


Logically, mind-control Enchantments should have the [Law] tag.
"Free will is a privilege, not a right." :smallamused:

Agreed. It would keep Chaotic casters from obviously violating their personality with free-will-obviating spells.


Generally, yes - most devils and demons can't access the Prime Material on their own. Calling one in, even if it's nominally in service to the mortal caster, gives the lower planes a chance to directly influence the Prime Material. And that mortal caster who bound the demon has revealed themselves to both be powerful enough to call and bind a demon, and to be somebody who doesn't mind treating with Evil and using Evil means to secure their ends.. in other words, a potentially usable piece for the plans of the Abyss. Having access a mortal agent like that as well as having one of their own demons/devils/whatevers walking around the Prime Material for a while is well worth letting the mortal pretend to be in control for a while - there's always more fiends around, but most of them are stuck in the Hells or the Abyss.

(And depending on what fluff you run by just having the demon on the Prime Material is a win for the lower planes - calling it there makes the whole plane just that little more Evil and that little bit more susceptible to other acts coming from the Evil end.)

This is pretty much the way I see it. Poor mortal pawns, foolishly giving us exactly what we want. And paying us for the privilege - directly, or with their souls.


I have to know, what do you consider to be an unreasonable command that would always be rejected. I can't think that the line was put in there if there were no unreasonable commands.


Kill yourself
Telling an Angel to murder an orphanage

Basically anything that will result in your death, or making you do something that you would rather die than do. Because that's really what's on the line here. If you don't come to an agreement the spellcaster is going to brutally murder you because you are absolutely helpless against Magic Circle.

Fiends can reform when dead, and other outsiders rather die than be enslaved to you for all eternity so Eternal Slavery is an unreasonable command for some outsiders, but not Elementals because we have direct RAW proof that they do in fact agree to an eternity in bondage. Not like this matters though since elementals have a terrible Strength-to-HD ratio.

Also official d&d dungeons like Age of Worms have insane Elementals because they were eternally enslaved in a shower room or something similar.

So... I apparently didn't QUOTE it, but I thought that there was a post saying that an evil outsider was successfully bound to do good deeds. Doesn't that kinda put "tell an angel to murder an orphanage" into the "reasonable" category?


How smart does he have to be? Smarter than the DM.

You clearly want a player-skills, player vs GM game. And that's a reasonable preference. I would happily play the summoned fiend as a DMPC. But, much like CaS vs CaW, it's a style issue, and not all GMs enjoy that style.

[Quertus]

I agree with this.... If the thing in question actually happened in game. If it's a reference in a book, then I say it doesn't count. An anecdote from a book that doesn't even really focus on the sort of magic in question shouldn't force the DM to allow such things just because "these NPCs did it", after all, they aren't actually npcs. They aren't characters in the game, at least not until the DM puts them in his game. Sure, the PCs should be doing cooler things than NPCs, but only those that the DM actually includes.

Player: how cool is your game?

GM: huh?

Player: well, in these D&D novels, these lowly NPCs* were able to pull off this awesome feat. Does your game have a high enough "coolness" level that our PCs can be that awesome?

I mean, I suppose that's a valid session 0 conversation to have...

* Or whatever the literary version of that word is.


Finally, someone who understands me.

It's not like you're terribly difficult to understand.

[Oblivionsmurf]

Since this thread is becoming unwieldy, I thought it might be convenient to set out the various propositions made by RoboEmperor, and counterarguments to those positions (if any). Everyone, please let me know if there are any propositions or counterarguments missed below.

Preliminary: Text of Lesser Planar Binding

Before beginning, it is convenient to set out the text of Lesser Planar Binding below:


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

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 + 1/2 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, page 246) to make the trap more secure.

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 DM assigns your check 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.

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 (such as “Wait here” or “Defend this area against attack”), the spell remains in effect for a maximum of one day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free. Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions.

When you use a calling spell to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type. For example, lesser planar binding is a water spell when you cast it to call a water elemental.

1. Planar Binding involves involuntary compulsion

RoboEmperor asserts that Planar Binding spells involve involuntary compulsion, rather than any form of consensual agreement.

This is supported by the text of Lesser Planar Binding itself:


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 DM assigns your check 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.

That is, Lesser Planar Binding involves an opposed Charisma check, that can be assigned a bonus based on the nature of service and the reward, but does not require any such bonus to succeed.

However, RoboEmperor also relies on quotes from the Eberron Campaign Setting (at page 51), Complete Mage (at page 28), Tome of Magic (at page 7), Monster Manual IV (at pages 46-47), and Fiendish Codex II (at page 133) to support his position. It is not necessary to address these quotes at the moment (because we will do so below).

Three other things that are relevant to the operation of the spell are:


whether a particular task assigned to the creature is 'open-ended' (as this sets a maximum duration on the spell, and provides the creature an immediate chance to break free);

whether a particular task constitutes an 'impossible demand' (because impossible demands are never agreed to);

whether a particular task constitutes an 'unreasonable demand' (because unreasonable demands are never agreed to).


2. Planar Binding does not require payment

This is addressed by item 1 above.

3. Free service is not an unreasonable command

I cannot see any quotes in RoboEmperor's post that expressly support this proposition (except those that cross over to a large extent with the 'open-ended' test discussed below), so I will instead use the quote that RoboEmperor uses to justify eternal servitude not being an unreasonable command, from the description of the Bind Elemental item creation feat, in the Eberron Campaign Setting (at page 51):


Crafting an item with a bound elemental is similar to making a wondrous item, except that calling and binding an elemental is an integral part of creating the item. All bound-elemental items have a planar binding spell as a prerequisite, but simply casting the spell as part of the item creation is not sufficient. You must cast the spell normally, using the item that is to hold the elemental and a Khyber dragonshard as a receptacle. The elemental receives its normal saving throw to resist. While the elemental resides in the receptacle, you must compel it to accept bondage in the item by making an opposed Charisma check, as specified in the lesser planar binding spell description.

RoboEmperor makes the following bare assertion about the Bind Elemental feat:


Note that this is NOT a special interaction between the Bind Elemental feat and Planar Binding. The above quote clearly states that you must use Planar Binding's charisma check as-is, completely unmodified, to use this feat.
I cannot see any proposition supporting this proposition, but set out the counterarguments below in any event.



The interaction between the Bind Elemental Feat and Planar Binding is a special interaction. Among other things, the use of a Planar Binding spell in Bind Elemental places the elemental in a Khyber dragonshard, and the compulsion takes place once the elemental is placed within the Khyber dragonshard.

The description of Khyber shards (at page 265) notes that '[t]heir affinity is for magic of binding. Thus, crafting a bound-elemental item requires binding the elemental to a Khyber shard, and these shards are common components of binding diagrams, trap the soul spells, and similar magic'. This reinforces that the Bind Elemental feat provides a special use for the Planar Binding line of spells, rather than a general description of the operation of those spells.

Even when the elemental is bound into 'eternal servitude' (as RoboEmperor describes it), the elemental does not always follow commands (again, reinforcing that this is a special case). From the Eberron Campaign Setting, at page 267:



Airships, elemental galleons, and lightning rail coaches are notoriously difficult to control. Heirs of House Lyrandar and House Orien use their dragonmark abilities, enhanced by special dragonmark focus items, to impose their will on the bound elementals that provide propulsion to the vessels. A character without the appropriate dragonmark can similarly bend the elemental to his will, but the task is much more difficult.

A character at the helm of an elemental vessel can telepathically command the bound elemental to move the vessel forward or backward, turn the vessel, speed it up, slow it down, or stop it. An airship can also move upward, move downward, or hover. In order to make the elemental obey any of these commands, an unmarked character must win an opposed Charisma check against the elemental virtually all elementals have a Charisma modifier of +0). If the elemental wins the opposed check, it either continues with the current course of movement or brings the vehicle to an immediate stop, according to its whim. If the character wins the opposed check, the vessel moves as the character intends.

4. Service for a fixed number of days is not an open-ended task

RoboEmperor relies on the following passage from Tome of Magic (at pages 188-189) to support this argument:


The door to this room is locked (Open Lock DC 35). Inside is a powerful balor demon, forced to serve the Votaries for five hundred years by means of a carefully negotiated greater planar binding spell. Its duties consist of torturing captives and learning whatever facts it can for Crestian (see area 13). The demon’s victims rarely last for long as it immolates them in its excitement. The balor resents its binding, so it does what it can to betray and disrupt its master’s plans. If the PCs do not immediately attack the demon and attempt to parlay first, it quickly divulges all it knows about Crestian and the Votaries, warning the characters that the lich lord has a sphere of annihilation.

RoboEmperor's proposition is not supported by the text of Planar Binding itself, which provides:


If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete though its own actions (such as “Wait here” or “Defend this area against attack”), the spell remains in effect for a maximum of one day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free.

If RoboEmperor's proposition were to be accepted, then the sole flaw in the example tasks listed in the spell would be the lack of a maximum duration. That is:


'wait here' would be an open-ended task that would last for one day per caster level; but

'wait here for one million years' would not be an open-ended task.


RoboEmperor has previously also relied on an Oxford English Dictionary definition of open-ended, defined as 'having no determined limit or boundary'. However, this is only a portion of the relevant definition. The full definition provides:


Admitting of several possible outcomes, conclusions, interpretations, etc.; allowing for future changes or additions. Also: having no predetermined limit or end; indefinite.
Given the absurdities that would arise if the RoboEmperor's quoted definition (the second limb of the Oxford Dictionary definition) was adopted, the first limb ('allowing for future changes or additions') should be preferred.

Even without the above analysis of the Planar Binding spell itself, the passage from Tome of Magic can be distinguished from the normal operation of Planar Binding in any event. In particular:


the Greater Planar Binding spell used by the Voltaries was 'carefully negotiated';
a Balor cannot ordinarily be summoned by a Greater Planar Binding spell in any event.

5. An outsider cannot merely wait out the duration of the Planar Binding spell and never give you an opposed Charisma check

RoboEmperor does not provide any authorities that expressly support this proposition, but he does not need to. The text of the spell itself provides:


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 DM assigns your check 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.

That is, the Charisma check is initiated by the caster describing the service, rather than the creature.

6. Surge of Fortune permits you to end negotiations within 1 round

Surge of Fortune is a Cleric 5 spell from Complete Champion (128-129) that provides:


Upon casting this spell, you gain a +2 luck bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls, saving throws, skill checks, ability checks, and spell penetration checks, as well as to Armor Class.

At any point before the spell expires, you can channel some of its remaining power into a single instant of perfect fortune as an immediate action. The result of the next attack roll, saving throw, skill check, ability check, or spell penetration check you attempt is treated as a natural 20, as long as it occurs within 1 round of the time you invoked this power. (If you use it for an attack roll, you must still roll to confirm the critical hit normally.) Using this option instantly ends the spell.
RoboEmperor is correct that most casters (with access to both Surge of Fortune and Planar Binding) can use Surge of Fortune to effectively win the opposed Charisma check. However, it is important to remember that Charisma checks do not automatically succeed or fail on a natural 20 or 1. If your Planar Binding target has an equal or higher Charisma modifier to you, it is possible that they may tie or win the opposed check. In that event, see page 31 of the Rules Compendium.

6. Superiors or allies of the creature (if it is a Fiend) will not seek revenge

RoboEmperor asserts that there is no risk of revenge from superiors or allies of a creature where a Fiend is bound.

He relies on the following passages from Fiendish Codex II:


Near the top of the hierarchy are the greater devils, which occupy positions of authority in the infernal power structure. The most powerful of the greater devils are the pit fi ends, which manage diabolical forces in every enterprise from the Blood War to the corruption of entire nations. Just below the nine Lords of Hell are a handful of unique devils known as dukes. Whether presently scheming in this direction or not, all dukes of Hell dream of the day when they can displace one of the current Lords of Hell and rule an entire layer.
While entertaining forbidden thoughts of ultimate power, dukes and pit fiends must in turn look out for their own positions. Other greater devils are always scheming to advance through the hierarchy, and the elevation of a new pit fiend is usually accompanied by the demotion of its disfavored counterpart. Furthermore, while the most powerful devils have frequent chances to prove themselves and continue their upward ascent, they are also exposed to the direct scrutiny of their lords. Punishment for failure is invariably swift and terrible, so greater devils live in constant terror of summary demotion. They take their fears out on their inferiors, who in turn bully those below them, and so on. This chain of merciless subordination continues all the way down to the pathetic, mindless lemures, which have no inferiors to lash out at.
...
Most demotions are punishments for failure. No meritocracy is more demanding or ruthless than Baator. Those who fail to perform soon find themselves trapped in the forms of wretched nupperibos and assigned to the most degrading duties available. (The exact nature of those tasks is best left to the imagination.)
...
However, even devils that perform their duties in exemplary fashion and obey all the rules can still be unfairly demoted. Political demotions occur when a devil’s superiors fear its ascent. Thus, the secret to successful advancement lies in the careful flattery and cultivation of one’s superiors. A clever devil reveals the true extent of its ambition only after its knife, metaphorical or literal, has been plunged between its former patron’s vertebrae.

To some degree, RoboEmperor does not even need to rely on this portion of Fiendish Codex II. The description of Planar Binding provides that '[t]he creature might later seek revenge', not the creature's allies or superiors.

However, to the extent that you consider that outside revenge may be a possibility, Fiendish Codex II (while presenting all Devils as self-serving) does certainly contemplate third parties seeking revenge in certain circumstances. In particular:


devils work within the strictest of hierarchies (see page 8);

devils have allies (both infernal and non-infernal) (multiple references through the book);

soul reports recording the top soul harvesters are essential to the promotion prospects of devils at work on the Material Plane (page 9); and

superior devils use underling lieutenants to manage territories on their behalf (page 15).


It is easy to envisage your Planar Binding spell harming a superior Devil's promotion prospects, and prompting that Devil to seek revenge against you. This is not the Devil seeking to help its subordinate, it is the Devil looking out for itself. Conversely, if you have (by accident) temporarily gotten rid of a dangerous underling, it is unlikely their superior will seek revenge against you. It all comes down to self-interest.

Postscript: RAW and RAI

As a final postscript to this summary, I want to distinguish between RAW and RAI.

When we look at the text of the Planar Binding spell, and interpret the spell based on that text, that is RAW. When we look rules published in other books for alternative specific-use cases for Planar Binding, and evaluate those on their text (combined with the Planar Binding spell text), that is also RAW.

When we comb through a range of sources, including fluff sources for guidance on how the Planar Binding spell works, that is no longer RAW; that is RAI.

[blackwindbears]

Considering the sidebar is titled "DEVILISH BRIBES AND GIFTS", the first sentence is "A spellcaster who calls a devil using a planar binding spell" and the header of the table is "Negotiations with Devils" I'd say it's pretty safe to assume this only applies to devils.

Not to mention that a lot of DMs probably won't know about or care about these rules. Of course, that doesn't change the actual rules but practice often differs from theory. I personally at least did not know about these rules at all and they seem a little wonky so I don't think I'd use this if I were DMing a game.

OP's original point for this thread was to lay a RAW smackdown on any DM that dared disagree with his preferred uses of the planar binding spell.

This seems somewhat more restrictive than his original interpretation.

[RoboEmperor]

This thread is reminding me why I prefer Fiendbinder prc’s rules on binding fiends (which could easily be extended to other extraplanar beings imo). Just research their truename, then pronounce it clearly and they’ll obey. It’s clear cut magical enslavement, they cannot hurt the summoner, and even if they break free the fluff claims they won’t attempt to attack the summoner lest they be bound again (on the basis that whilst bound in this manner they can die for real). No fuss, just say their name and bam, they’re there.

Plus you can summon as many as (and for as long as you like) you have the time and money to research the names of. Just that it takes a action per bound fiend to command them so I guess most would just sit around playing cards when you’re in combat if they don’t want to fight.

More and more instances that show that WotC wants players to eternally enslave fiends. Whether it's through a class feature or a spell it doesn't matter. The result is the same.


OP's original point for this thread was to lay a RAW smackdown on any DM that dared disagree with his preferred uses of the planar binding spell.

This seems somewhat more restrictive than his original interpretation.

I don't understand what the big deal of the sidebar is. It clearly states the modifiers given in the tables are just a sample. Meaning it's not a completed list. So what's the Charisma modifier of the spellcaster promising not to kill the Devil right then and there? Something along the lines of +99. If a DM disagrees with this then they're free to set a value themselves which then ends up being identical to completely ignoring the sidebar and using the planar binding text's to determine the outcome.

This is the last time I'm going to respond to this argument. I have thoroughly and repeatedly shown that saying that sidebar prevents free service from devils is incorrect. If people ignore everything I say then so be it, i will ignore them too.

[Nifft]

More and more instances that show that WotC wants players to eternally enslave fiends. Whether it's through a class feature or a spell it doesn't matter. The result is the same.

Sex sells.

[Oblivionsmurf]

More and more instances that show that WotC wants players to eternally enslave fiends. Whether it's through a class feature or a spell it doesn't matter. The result is the same.

This is not correct (at least not via Planar Binding).

As you say, we have addressed these arguments before, but (again) Planar Binding imposes as a mandatory condition of every binding that a creature will (at a minimum) be provided its freedom:


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

...

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 (such as “Wait here” or “Defend this area against attack”), the spell remains in effect for a maximum of one day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free. Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions.

Eternal service (or any form of service) is an open-ended task, which means that you have a maximum one-day per caster level duration (refer to my post above). Similarly, the Bind Elemental feat use of Planar Binding is a special case scenario, restricted to that feat (again, refer above).

More broadly, I suspect much of the disagreements here stem from you insisting on using the term 'enslavement' when describing Planar Binding. Sometimes, 'enslavement' (or 'slavery') can be used as a synonym for the compulsion effect referred to by the Planar Binding spell, but sometimes it cannot. To borrow from the Oxford English Dictionary (since you prefer that dictionary), a slave is:


One who is the property of, and entirely subject to, another person, whether by capture, purchase, or birth; a servant completely divested of freedom and personal rights.

Let's compare that to the language of Planar Binding itself. It uses the following terms:

'The called creature is held in the trap until it agrees to perform one service in return for its freedom';
'You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service';
'Once the requested service is completed, the creature need only so inform you to be instantly sent back whence it came'.

I recognise that the fluff refers to outsiders being 'enslaved' by uses of the Planar Binding spell, but you must recognise that the primary text of Planar Binding itself should be your starting point for any analysis of the bounds of the spell. The spell is transactional (even if no consideration from the caster is required for the transaction to take place); it is not a permanent enslavement spell.


I don't understand what the big deal of the sidebar is. It clearly states the modifiers given in the tables are just a sample. Meaning it's not a completed list. So what's the Charisma modifier of the spellcaster promising not to kill the Devil right then and there? Something along the lines of +99. If a DM disagrees with this then they're free to set a value themselves which then ends up being identical to completely ignoring the sidebar and using the planar binding text's to determine the outcome.

I did not want to address this argument in my earlier summary, because it is more complex than the other arguments, but it probably is useful to do so now.

You've broadly raised two responses to the Fiendish Codex II sidebar:


firstly, that it only applies to voluntary agreements using the Planar Binding spell, not forced compulsion;
secondly, even if it applies to both voluntary agreements and forced compulsion, you should obtain a positive modifier for threatening to kill the Devil (as you have stated above).


I'll deal with these in reverse order.

Positive modifier for threatening to kill the Devil

As you say, the Charisma check modifiers given in the table are not exhaustive, and there would undoubtedly be a modifier for threatening to kill the Devil.

Notwithstanding the above, if your DM disagrees with your proposed quantum for that modifier, they are not 'completely ignoring the sidebar'; they are merely assigning a different value to the modifier than you might prefer. In particular, they are still complying with the critical part of the sidebar, which requires a modifier of +0 or more to succeed in Planar Binding a Devil.

Sidebar only applies to voluntary agreements

Based on your previous posts, the thrust of your argument seems to be that:


Planar Binding can involve consensual agreements, as well as compulsion;
the side bar only applies to consensual agreements.


Planar Binding can involve consensual agreements, as well as compulsion

Planar Binding does not permit you to elect between a consensual agreement and a compulsive agreement. There is only one form of agreement permitted under Planar Binding - opposed Charisma checks modified by rewards offered by the caster.

Segev previously gave an example of not using Planar Binding and forming a consensual agreement with an outsider:


Nothing stops you from politely apologizing for the inconvenience of calling them, and the distrust of the trap, and attempting to negotiate a more convenient time for the Outsider to be called up to negotiate for something of mutual benefit. You don't have to do the opposed Charisma check to compel it to accept the bargain. You can use it as a glorified phone call to ask to negotiate for services rendered.

As with most things, it's how you use it that determines how it demonstrates your alignment.

That is not a Planar Binding agreement, that is an ordinary agreement (where first contact was made by means of a Planar Binding spell). That agreement (which I agree is consensual) is not governed by the Fiendish Codex II sidebar, which deals only with a Devil being called via Planar Binding, and then opposed Charisma checks being made. Segev's agreement involves no form of compulsion, because it has not occurred via the Planar Binding spell.

Put another way, let us modify Segev's facts.


You call an outsider using Planar Binding.

You apologise politely for the inconvenience of calling them, and the distrust of the trap.

You negotiate delicately with them, offering whatever rewards the outsider desires.

You use expert diplomacy skills to render the outsider Helpful to you

The outsider now wants to make a deal. It is perfectly willing to do so. You do not need to use an opposed Charisma check (you can just make an ordinary agreement), but you can do so if you choose.

Regardless of what option you choose, the outsider wants to make the deal.


If you do not make an opposed Charisma check at this stage, you have made a voluntary agreement with the outsider. If you do make an opposed Charisma check, you have just used the Planar Binding spell. It does not matter that the outsider wanted to make the deal anyway, it is now subject to Planar Binding's usual compulsion effects. If the outsider changed its mind after making the deal, it would remain subject to the Planar Binding spell.

There is only one form of agreement under Planar Binding - opposed Charisma check modified by rewards.

Sidebar only applies to voluntary agreements, not compulsive agreements

For the benefit of others, I am going to replicate both the introductory text to the sidebar, plus the sidebar itself, below.

Introductory text:


INFERNAL ALLIANCES

Occasionally, a foolish mortal dabbles in forbidden knowledge and lore without realizing the danger it holds. Perhaps initial experiments go well enough, emboldening the seeker to continue. But the deeper such an amateur delves, the greater the risk of attracting infernal attention, until at last a devil arrives to seduce and cajole the fool who has been witlessly exploring the obscene and forbidden.

More informed mortals sometimes actively seek to enslave devils and use them as tools to serve their own ends. Such efforts usually backfire, and the hubris of the act has a way of catching up with such casters. Some devils can be summoned with summon monster spells. Such a spell gains the evil descriptor when used to conjure an evil creature, so anyone who uses it in this way gains 1 corruption point (see Corrupt Acts, below). While such spells provide quick and useful services from the summoned beings, the duration is quite limited.

For longer service, spellcasters can employ planar ally and planar binding spells, both of which involve actually calling a devil from Baator and making a bargain for its aid. As stated in the spell descriptions, planar ally requires a gift of 100 gp per HD of the summoned creature for tasks requiring just a few minutes, up to 500 gp per HD for tasks requiring hours, or 1,000 gp per HD for tasks requiring days. Planar binding spells are not as clear cut, stating only that the caster must make a series of offers and bribes to gain the outsider’s willing service, with higher offers generating better bonuses on the caster’s required Charisma check. For a more detailed look, see the Devilish Bribes and Gifts sidebar.

Sidebar (excluding modifier examples):


A spellcaster who calls a devil using a planar binding spell must negotiate terms for its service, offering gifts and sacrifices to secure the desired assistance. In most cases, the negotiations are lengthy, involving several offers and counteroffers before an agreement is reached.

The table below details the Charisma check modifiers for a number of sample bribes and gifts, as well as the complexity of the task required, the length of service, and the circumstances of casting. You must offer enough gifts and bribes to bring the modifier back to +0 or higher, or your Charisma check automatically fails.

For example, Edgar, a 9th-level wizard, casts lesser planar binding to call a bearded devil. The service he demands will require 8 hours, imposing a –4 penalty on his Charisma check. Thus, Edgar must offset this penalty before the negotiations can even begin. The highest wealth offering he can make is 3,000 gp in assorted coins and goods. Since the devil has 6 HD, Edgar gains a +4 bonus, bringing the modifier on his Charisma check back up to +0.

As noted in my example above, there is only one form of agreement permitted by Planar Binding. As soon as you are making an opposed Charisma check, you are governed by the Fiendish Codex II sidebar, and Devils will refuse your task if your modifier is below +0.

You've previously asserted that, if the sidebar applied to all forms of Planar Binding agreements, it would be incompatible with slavery:


1. The Devilish Bribes sidebar is in Fiendish Codex II
2. The above quote is in Fiendish Codex II. In other words they are both from the same book.
3. It is impossible to enslave a Devil using the rules in the Devilish Bribes sidebar.
4. Yet in the same book a wizard used the Planar Binding spell (not dominate monster) to enslave a Devil.

Therefore...
1. FCII directly says Devils can be enslaved
2. The only way you can enslave Devils is if you ignore that sidebar.
3. Therefore in conclusion you only use the Devilish Bribes sidebar during a consensual planar binding when you're using bribes and you ignore it if you are not trying to obtain a devil's willing service.

You got two things fighting you here.
1. The sidebar was used to elaborate willing service under Infernal Alliances.
2. The sidebar is incompatible with slavery.

Your logic might put up a fight with 1 but not 2.

That is not correct. The sidebar merely notes circumstances in which a Charisma check will automatically fail when dealing with Devils. For example, you could:


you could require the Devil to serve you for one-day per caster level; and
you could torture a good 16HD cleric.


This brings your modifier back to 0. You then use Surge of Fortune, and suddenly the Devil is as 'enslaved' as it can be under the Planar Binding spell.

You have also asserted that this part of the introductory text clearly shows that the sidebar only applies to willing service:


Planar binding spells are not as clear cut, stating only that the caster must make a series of offers and bribes to gain the outsider’s willing service, with higher offers generating better bonuses on the caster’s required Charisma check.

However, this passage still clearly refers to the Charisma check for Planar Binding. Once you succeed on that check, you have compelled the creature to perform a task, regardless of whether the creature is willing or not. The creature cannot change its mind once you succeed an opposed Charisma check, it is bound to perform the task assigned to it.

Fiendish Codex II's reference to 'willing service' is merely a clumsy reference to the operation of Planar Binding itself, noting again (from the basic spell description) that:


'You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service';
'You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature’s Charisma check';
'The DM assigns your check 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'; and
'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'; and
'Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to'.


Finally, for the avoidance of doubt, and based on the posts I have reviewed on this thread, when most posters rebut your interpretations, they are not doing so because it contradicts their house rules of how Planar Binding operates; they are doing so because they have a legitimate and reasonable disagreement about the RAW interpretation of the spell.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I am not opposed to your interpretation of Planar Binding because it makes Planar Binding overpowered; I am opposed to your interpretation of Planar Binding because it seems to contradict what little 'crunch' exists in relation to Planar Binding, and cherry picks from a range of sources.

I am hoping, however, that the end result of this discussion thread will be that a more reasonable list of Planar Binding interpretation points can be developed, that everyone agrees on (and that can potentially form the basis for a Planar Binding Handbook).

[Crake]

More and more instances that show that WotC wants players to eternally enslave fiends. Whether it's through a class feature or a spell it doesn't matter. The result is the same.

Well, considering WotC abandoned 3.5 over a decade ago, I think we can all agree what WotC wants is pretty much irrelevant. In fact, it was never really relevant unless you were partaking in WotC-run organized play. It's what the players and DM conjunctively want to achieve together in their co-operative story telling that matters.

[fallensavior]

But Fiends will do good if it spares their life.

Debatable.



The payment for planar binding is "life" because if they refuse you're gonna murder them.

That's like,...the epitome of unreasonable. Some might consent to it, but I think it's at least equally likely that any trapped creature will lash out when you say "do it or I kill you".


The creature cannot reach across the magic circle, but its ranged attacks (ranged weapons, spells, magical abilities, and the like) can. The creature can attack any target it can reach with its ranged attacks except for the circle itself.

They are not helpless, and they don't know how OP you are. They are likely to inadvertently force you to kill them by trying to kill you if you tell them their life is on the line.

[RoboEmperor]

Debatable.




That's like,...the epitome of unreasonable. Some might consent to it, but I think it's at least equally likely that any trapped creature will lash out when you say "do it or I kill you".



They are not helpless, and they don't know how OP you are. They are likely to inadvertently force you to kill them by trying to kill you if you tell them their life is on the line.

If I have you in a tiny cage that's at most 2 ft wide and long and 6ft tall, and I'm standing outside the cage with a gun to your head, and tell you to be my slave, how would you respond?

If you were the most idealistic champion of good with tremendous willpower and convictions you would rather die than serve me because by serving me to spare your life you are enabling slavery and encouraging me to continuously enslave your people for my own benefit. Your death here will hamper and possibly eliminate future slavery because once I know you people cannot be enslaved I will not waste my time trying. Important part here is your death in the cage would accomplish something.

Now lets say you are a sadistic bloodthirsty cannibal that would murder anything you can get your hands on and lets say you're NOT insane. You will do everything I say to spare your wretched life because you only care about yourself and you don't want to die. Your death here would be meaningless and accomplish nothing so you will do everything I say spending every waking moment trying to figure out how to escape and brutally murder my ass. It doesn't matter if I send you to kill someone or bring healthy broccoli to children, you will do it because you don't want to die.

That's why angels are impossible to enslave while fiends are super easy to enslave. Complete selfishness and complete lack of principles and morals.

[Psyren]

^ I agree completely with the reasoning above (fiends will readily take the deal) but not with the conclusion (they'll spend every waking moment trying to find the loophole in my directives and kill me, therefore this kind of planar binding is a good idea?)

[Cosi]

they'll spend every waking moment trying to find the loophole in my directives and kill me, therefore this kind of planar binding is a good idea?

I mean, I'm sure they would in-world, but I don't think anyone wants the answer to "what happens when someone casts planar binding?" to be "that player and the DM spending the next several hours negotiating a legally binding contract with a precise definition of 'is'". That sounds terrible. I want anything but that to be how the spell works.

This is what happens when you tie yourself in knots insisting that RAW isn't broken. You aren't going to make RAW not broken, you're just going to make the game incredibly painful to play from every side of the table.

[Keltest]

I mean, I'm sure they would in-world, but I don't think anyone wants the answer to "what happens when someone casts planar binding?" to be "that player and the DM spending the next several hours negotiating a legally binding contract with a precise definition of 'is'". That sounds terrible. I want anything but that to be how the spell works.

This is what happens when you tie yourself in knots insisting that RAW isn't broken. You aren't going to make RAW not broken, you're just going to make the game incredibly painful to play from every side of the table.

Mostly I think its an exceptionally compelling reason to not make "I am going to kill you if you don't agree to serve me" a bargaining point. Presumably you want a minion who actually tries to achieve your goals, not one looking to make you as miserable as possible. Starting off with lethal hostilities is only going to cause things to escalate from there.

[RoboEmperor]

^ I agree completely with the reasoning above (fiends will readily take the deal) but not with the conclusion (they'll spend every waking moment trying to find the loophole in my directives and kill me, therefore this kind of planar binding is a good idea?)

I never said it was a good idea. Not once did I say it was a good idea. I've been saying it's a FUN idea and since this is a game why not take the FUN option? For fun. Because it's fun to have fun.


I mean, I'm sure they would in-world, but I don't think anyone wants the answer to "what happens when someone casts planar binding?" to be "that player and the DM spending the next several hours negotiating a legally binding contract with a precise definition of 'is'". That sounds terrible. I want anything but that to be how the spell works.

Or, the DM accepts that an intelligent experienced player who wants to bind a fiend or two like how WotC wanted is gonna get his way so instead of wasting precious game time playing lawyer to prevent something the authors explicitly allowed and just get on with the game. Or if the DM doesn't want player minionmancy he can just say upfront "no minionmancy" when advertising his game instead of playing lawyer and throwing a hissy fit when he loses. Only a noob DM plays lawyer. Experienced DMs don't bother and allow/ban it.

[Zanos]

^ I agree completely with the reasoning above (fiends will readily take the deal) but not with the conclusion (they'll spend every waking moment trying to find the loophole in my directives and kill me, therefore this kind of planar binding is a good idea?)
Liberal application of charm monster?

[RoboEmperor]

Liberal application of charm monster?

Any fiend worth a damn has at-will protection from good or unholy aura or something.

[Zanos]

Any fiend worth a damn has at-will protection from good or unholy aura or something.
If you're using GBP sure, not as much at lower levels. And you can probably work them not activating that or selectively allowing your spell effects through into the original negotiation.

[Crake]

If I have you in a tiny cage that's at most 2 ft wide and long and 6ft tall

The trap circle isn't that small, the spell gives it a 10ft radius. You're looking at the material component when warding a creature. Keep in mind, if you really believe it to be a 2ft wide circle then good luck ever binding anything larger than medium:


If a creature too large to fit into the spell’s area is the subject of the spell, the spell acts as a normal protection from evil spell for that creature only.

As to whether or not you can cast magic across the calling diagram without disturbing it, you seem to believe it doesn't, but in my opinion, if a straw being laid across the diagram disturbs it, then a ray crossing over it, or an orb of fire flying over it, or even a hand passing over it into the circle all count as disturbing the diagram.

If you want to be able to torture your subject, you have to use the magic circle WITHOUT the calling diagram, which is far less restrictive to the fiend, but also far more sturdy, much more difficult to break from the outside. It's especially great when used on something that doesn't have any ranged attacks, so you can just keep at range and do what you want to them. There's a REASON you can make the trap without a calling diagram after all, and that is the reason.

[RoboEmperor]

The size of the circle doesn't matter. Whether you have a 20ft circumference circular cage or not doesn't matter. It's shooting fish in a barrel.


As to whether or not you can cast magic across the calling diagram without disturbing it, you seem to believe it doesn't, but in my opinion, if a straw being laid across the diagram disturbs it, then a ray crossing over it, or an orb of fire flying over it, or even a hand passing over it into the circle all count as disturbing the diagram.

The straw has to actually touch the circle to cut it, not hover over it. Notice how it says DISTURB THE DIAGRAM and a straw LAID over it. Shooting arrows over the diagram does not disturb it. Shooting arrows on the diagram disturbs it.

2nd reading I think some small amount of dirt or dust will set the creature free but you only need one shot to kill the guy. And Enervation doesn't disturb anything except the creature.

[Crake]

The size of the circle doesn't matter. Whether you have a 20ft circumference circular cage or not doesn't matter. It's shooting fish in a barrel.



The straw has to actually touch the circle to cut it, not hover over it. Notice how it says DISTURB THE DIAGRAM and a straw LAID over it. Shooting arrows over the diagram does not disturb it. Shooting arrows on the diagram disturbs it.

2nd reading I think some small amount of dirt or dust will set the creature free but you only need one shot to kill the guy. And Enervation doesn't disturb anything except the creature.

That just brings you to the semantics of what it means to be "laid over" soemthing. what if the straw was placed so that it was merely arched not even a milimeter above the diagram, but never actually touched it? Is it still considered to be "laid over" it at that point? What if it was slightly bend upward and the only points of contact with the straw are on the ground outside of the circle? Does that still count as laid over it? To this end, I must take the most setting consistent reading, IE one that doesn't result in planar binding/gate being usable as an interplanetary assassination spell. If it functions as you say it does, where the trapped being is completely vulnerable to attack, and has no means of retaliation, then why aren't planar beings using this spell to assassinate each other? The only logical reason for that is that the calling diagram must be so fragile that even magic passing over and through it counts as disturbing the diagram.

Otherwise, the other option is that one day your character will be gated into a magic circle and then be powerless to stop his own death. Because yes, with gate, literally anything can be trapped in a magic circle, even non-outsiders/non-elementals, and if the trapped creature is as powerless as you say, then the spell's fantasy of being a tool to bind outsiders to your will radically shifts, and it instead becomes a tool to assassinate whoever you wish without any opposition. Think about which you would prefer, I know which one I prefer.

[Oblivionsmurf]

That just brings you to the semantics of what it means to be "laid over" soemthing. what if the straw was placed so that it was merely arched not even a milimeter above the diagram, but never actually touched it? Is it still considered to be "laid over" it at that point? What if it was slightly bend upward and the only points of contact with the straw are on the ground outside of the circle? Does that still count as laid over it? To this end, I must take the most setting consistent reading, IE one that doesn't result in planar binding/gate being usable as an interplanetary assassination spell. If it functions as you say it does, where the trapped being is completely vulnerable to attack, and has no means of retaliation, then why aren't planar beings using this spell to assassinate each other? The only logical reason for that is that the calling diagram must be so fragile that even magic passing over and through it counts as disturbing the diagram.

Otherwise, the other option is that one day your character will be gated into a magic circle and then be powerless to stop his own death. Because yes, with gate, literally anything can be trapped in a magic circle, even non-outsiders/non-elementals, and if the trapped creature is as powerless as you say, then the spell's fantasy of being a tool to bind outsiders to your will radically shifts, and it instead becomes a tool to assassinate whoever you wish without any opposition. Think about which you would prefer, I know which one I prefer.

Great idea for the PCs though. Find out the proper name of the BBEG (what does 'proper name' even mean), plane shift to another plane, and then use Planar Binding / Magic Circle / Dimensional Anchor to prep him for assassination. Campaign over!

[Crake]

Great idea for the PCs though. Find out the proper name of the BBEG (what does 'proper name' even mean), plane shift to another plane, and then use Planar Binding / Magic Circle / Dimensional Anchor to prep him for assassination. Campaign over!

You would have to use gate unless he was an outsider/elemental. Gate simply targets one extraplanar creature, but planar binding specifically targets outsiders/elementals. Gate also has no HD restrictions on it, only HD restrictions on what can be controlled, but since you're just dumping it into a magic circle, you don't care about control.

Of course, introducing this level of thinking you could achieve the following: Planar bind an efreeti, use two wishes to satiate it's anger, use one wish to greater planar bind a planetar. Have them cast gate to gate in a titan (they presumably cannot gate in the BBEG themselves, because that would become an evil spell and they can't cast evil spells), then have the titan gate in the BBEG. Boom, interplanetary assassination from level 11.

[RoboEmperor]

That just brings you to the semantics of what it means to be "laid over" soemthing. what if the straw was placed so that it was merely arched not even a milimeter above the diagram, but never actually touched it? Is it still considered to be "laid over" it at that point? What if it was slightly bend upward and the only points of contact with the straw are on the ground outside of the circle? Does that still count as laid over it? To this end, I must take the most setting consistent reading, IE one that doesn't result in planar binding/gate being usable as an interplanetary assassination spell. If it functions as you say it does, where the trapped being is completely vulnerable to attack, and has no means of retaliation, then why aren't planar beings using this spell to assassinate each other? The only logical reason for that is that the calling diagram must be so fragile that even magic passing over and through it counts as disturbing the diagram.

Otherwise, the other option is that one day your character will be gated into a magic circle and then be powerless to stop his own death. Because yes, with gate, literally anything can be trapped in a magic circle, even non-outsiders/non-elementals, and if the trapped creature is as powerless as you say, then the spell's fantasy of being a tool to bind outsiders to your will radically shifts, and it instead becomes a tool to assassinate whoever you wish without any opposition. Think about which you would prefer, I know which one I prefer.


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.

If something isn't touching the diagram it's not disturbing it.

Laid over means exactly that, laid on top of the thing. Do you understand the word lay? It means to put DOWN. Not hover over. 1 micrometer of distance between the diagram and the straw will not break the circle because then it's hovering over the circle instead of being laid over the circle.

I don't know how more clear the rules can get. Disturb the diagram. Laid over the diagram. Not hover over the diagram. You need to disturb the diagram for it to fail. I cannot possibly see how you can be right on the matter.

If your reasoning is "then why doesn't everyone do it" then I gotta say, what you want is perverting your interpretation. Wall of Salt makes everyone rich. Simulacrum of an Efreeti results in infinite wishes. Why doesn't everyone do it? Fabricate literally triples the mass of any material you have. So why doesn't everyone do it?

It's because higher level spellcasters are mega-ultra rare and d&d isn't designed to sustain when everyone does everything.

You are literally the only person I know that says spells disrupt the circle because magic being "flown over the diagram" means "laying over the diagram."

And even your interpretation doesn't stop a million NPCs readying an action to blast the bastard the moment he is called.

If I shoot an arrow over a carpet am I disturbing the carpet? If I hover past the carpet with only 1 micrometer of distance between me and the carpet, am I disturbing the carpet?

[Crake]

It's because higher level spellcasters are mega-ultra rare and d&d isn't designed to sustain when everyone does everything.

Except in an interplanetary war, like, oh, i dunno, the war between good and evil... There are a LOOTTT of high level spellcasters. Like, a LOT. They could be using this quite easily.

And as I demonstrated, it doesn't require that you be particularly HIGH, even mid level casters can achieve this capability for interplanetary assassination. Also, keep in mind that the description seems to be left intentionally vague. The straw being laid across is an example, it is not a hard use-case that demonstrates the limits of the diagram's fragility. In the case of such vagueness, the decision of what level of fragility the diagram has is left entirely up to the DM. Personally, I favour a level of fragility that doesn't break the campaign setting.

If you want to be able to sling spells across the magic circle without breaking it, there's the option to NOT use the diagram. You have a weaker cage, but it's more sturdy.

[RoboEmperor]

If you want to be able to sling spells across the magic circle without breaking it, there's the option to NOT use the diagram. You have a weaker cage, but it's more sturdy.

You need to admit this is a house rule and not RAW, which is totally fine, but admit this is a house rule.

I don't think you read my edited post. My bad for editing too much but even your interpretation does not stop planar binding from being used as an assassination tool. Any number of blasters can ready an action to kill whatever is called the moment it appears even without a magic circle.

[Crake]

You need to admit this is a house rule and not RAW, which is totally fine, but admit this is a house rule.

I don't think you read my edited post. My bad for editing too much but even your interpretation does not stop planar binding from being used as an assassination tool. Any number of blasters can ready an action to kill whatever is called the moment it appears even without a magic circle.

I won't so much call it a houserule as much as an interpretation of a deliberately vague rule. What constitutes the "disturbing" of the diagram is left completely undefined. Only a single example is given, with no indication as to what part of the example is causing the disturbance. Disturb means to "interfere with the normal arrangement or functioning of." Now, we can assume it means either arrangement or functioning, or possibly both. The diagram creates a virtually impenetrable barrier between the trapped creature and the outside world, that is it's function. Something passing through the barrier must therefore be disturbing it's function.

You're choosing to interpret it as ONLY being counted when the arrangement is distrubed, which again, comes down to, what counts as the arrangement being disturbed? In many cases, touching something doesn't count as disturbing it after all. It has to be changed, yet in this case, the straw being laid across it, note not on it, meaning the straw doesn't even need to touch the diagram, this counts as disturbing it. Since it can be laid across without touching, at what point does this become an interference?

Now, as I have already admitted, this is my interpretation, but you need to admit to yourself that this part of the rules was left deliberately vague, and you cannot call what I'm saying a houserule without also calling your own ruling a houserule. The RAW is too vague to properly make a definitive "This is the one true RAW" reading. It comes down to how the DM wants to run it, and as I said earlier: I prefer the interpretation that doesn't result in name of the spell becoming "Lesser/Greater Planar assassination".

[RoboEmperor]

Now, as I have already admitted, this is my interpretation, but you need to admit to yourself that this part of the rules was left deliberately vague, and you cannot call what I'm saying a houserule without also calling your own ruling a houserule. The RAW is too vague to properly make a definitive "This is the one true RAW" reading. It comes down to how the DM wants to run it, and as I said earlier: I prefer the interpretation that doesn't result in name of the spell becoming "Lesser/Greater Planar assassination".

It's not left "deliberately vague". It's vague in the sense that Shades' description is vague enough that one might lawyer it so that lets you replicate any conjuration spell and not just creation and summoning as in WotC did a poor job writing it.

I'll give you some of my own extreme examples and lets see where the discussion goes.
1. A bird flies over the diagram 100ft in the air. Is this disturbing the diagram?
2. I decide to box the fiend in to prevent dust from disturbing the diagram. When I put the ceiling of the box over the fiend and diagram am I disturbing the diagram?
3. I shoot an arrow from above the fiend and perpendicular to the diagram. Directly above. When does the arrow disturb the diagram? What distance does the arrow disturb the diagram?
4. Why isn't the light source disturbing the diagram? Rays disturb it right?
So why is it that the diagram is disturbed when the arrow flies 5ft over the diagram and not 100ft?

And again, your interpretation does not stop me from using planar binding as an assassination tool. Readied action blasters.

[Crake]

It's not left "deliberately vague". It's vague in the sense that Shades' description is vague enough that one might lawyer it so that lets you replicate any conjuration spell and not just creation and summoning as in WotC did a poor job writing it.

I'll give you some of my own extreme examples and lets see where the discussion goes.
1. A bird flies over the diagram 100ft in the air. Is this disturbing the diagram?
2. I decide to box the fiend in to prevent dust from disturbing the diagram. When I put the ceiling of the box over the fiend and diagram am I disturbing the diagram?
3. I shoot an arrow from above the fiend and perpendicular to the diagram. Directly above. When does the arrow disturb the diagram? What distance does the arrow disturb the diagram?
4. Why isn't the light source disturbing the diagram? Rays disturb it right?
So why is it that the diagram is disturbed when the arrow flies 5ft over the diagram and not 100ft?

And again, your interpretation does not stop me from using planar binding as an assassination tool. Readied action blasters.

1. The effect is a 10ft radius, which results in a spherical barrier, so it's not passing through the function of the diagram, therefore not disturbing it
2. See 1.
3. See 1.
4. I was just having this discussion with a friend of mine, we were playing devils advocate on the matter. Light, and by extension, air, and other microscopic effects and objects (like invisible dust particles) do pose a question, but I could ask equally problematic questions about your reading:

What happens if someone is jabbing the trapped creature with a spear? Can the fiend grab the spear? If he can, what can he do with the spear? He can't affect anything outside of the circle, and any force he applies to the spear will travel up along it's length to whoever's holding it, thus applying a force to that creature. Does this mean that the creature cannot apply any force to the spear? In that case, the spear either a) can literally cut through the trapped creature like butter, because it it is applying no resistance forces, or b) cannot apply a force to the creature either. The same can be said for anything passing through the barrier, because the creature could be right up against the edge, and result in the same scenario.

So you either have a case where the creature and someone outside the barrier and both holding onto an object, yet to the fiend the object is an immovable object. In this case, why bother with fancy spells, you could quite literally throw a string net over the creature and it would dice them to pieces.

However, if all this is the case, then what you are EFFECTIVELY doing is forcing the barrier on the creature, and abjuration spells specifically cannot force their barriers onto creatures, otherwise they break: Ergo, jabbing a spear through the barrier will break the barrier.

[Oblivionsmurf]

Here's a separate question to the above discussion.

A Magic Circle has a 10ft radius. Per the Rules Compendium (p 135), this is an actual sphere, rather than some approximation using squares:


Sphere: A sphere-shaped spell expands from its point of origin to fill a spherical area of a given radius. Spheres might be bursts, emanations, or spreads.

A large creature occupies 2x2 squares (page 116 of the Rules Compendium), or at a minimum 2 squares (if it squeezes into a space that is one 1 square wide) (page 95).


Space Occupied by Big Creatures: When a Large creature squeezes into a space that’s 1 square wide, the creature’s miniature figure occupies 2 squares, centered on the line between those squares. For a bigger creature, center the creature likewise in the area it squeezes into.

Magic Circle provides:


This spell has an alternative version that you may choose when casting it. A magic circle against evil can be focused inward rather than outward. 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. If a creature too large to fit into the spell’s area is the subject of the spell, the spell acts as a normal protection from evil spell for that creature only.

Is a large creature too large to fit within Magic Circle's area?

[Crake]

Here's a separate question to the above discussion.

A Magic Circle has a 10ft radius. Per the Rules Compendium (p 135), this is an actual sphere, rather than some approximation using squares:


Sphere: A sphere-shaped spell expands from its point of origin to fill a spherical area of a given radius. Spheres might be bursts, emanations, or spreads.

A large creature occupies 2x2 squares (page 116 of the Rules Compendium), or at a minimum 2 squares (if it squeezes into a space that is one 1 square wide) (page 95).


Space Occupied by Big Creatures: When a Large creature squeezes into a space that’s 1 square wide, the creature’s miniature figure occupies 2 squares, centered on the line between those squares. For a bigger creature, center the creature likewise in the area it squeezes into.

Magic Circle provides:


This spell has an alternative version that you may choose when casting it. A magic circle against evil can be focused inward rather than outward. 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. If a creature too large to fit into the spell’s area is the subject of the spell, the spell acts as a normal protection from evil spell for that creature only.

Is a large creature too large to fit within Magic Circle's area?

It's 10ft radius, so 20ft across. Keep in mind however, that the spaces a large creature occupies in combat is not the same as what space it can be contained in. 10ftx10ft is the amount of space the creature needs to move and dodge and fight effectively, but as you noted, such a creature could squeeze into a 5ft/5ft area, just the same as a person could squeeze into a 2.5/2.5ft area. A large creature could quite comfortably fit into the 10ft radius of the magic circle, it only begins becoming a problem for huge and larger, where the 10ft height becomes a problem, which is why the magic circles I make for such creatures actually dip into the ground to create a full 10ft radius sphere, allowing creatures of up to 20ft (gargantuan) to stand comfortably within it.

[Oblivionsmurf]

It's 10ft radius, so 20ft across. Keep in mind however, that the spaces a large creature occupies in combat is not the same as what space it can be contained in. 10ftx10ft is the amount of space the creature needs to move and dodge and fight effectively, but as you noted, such a creature could squeeze into a 5ft/5ft area, just the same as a person could squeeze into a 2.5/2.5ft area. A large creature could quite comfortably fit into the 10ft radius of the magic circle, it only begins becoming a problem for huge and larger, where the 10ft height becomes a problem, which is why the magic circles I make for such creatures actually dip into the ground to create a full 10ft radius sphere, allowing creatures of up to 20ft (gargantuan) to stand comfortably within it.

Whoops, you're right.

But, since the radius is measured from the circle drawn on the ground, that means the height of the thing is only 10ft. A Pit Fiend is 12ft.

Or do you say that the spell in effect calls them in a hunched over position? We're house ruling at this stage, presumably.

[RoboEmperor]

1. The effect is a 10ft radius, which results in a spherical barrier, so it's not passing through the function of the diagram, therefore not disturbing it
2. See 1.
3. See 1.
4. I was just having this discussion with a friend of mine, we were playing devils advocate on the matter. Light, and by extension, air, and other microscopic effects and objects (like invisible dust particles) do pose a question, but I could ask equally problematic questions about your reading:

What happens if someone is jabbing the trapped creature with a spear? Can the fiend grab the spear? If he can, what can he do with the spear? He can't affect anything outside of the circle, and any force he applies to the spear will travel up along it's length to whoever's holding it, thus applying a force to that creature. Does this mean that the creature cannot apply any force to the spear? In that case, the spear either a) can literally cut through the trapped creature like butter, because it it is applying no resistance forces, or b) cannot apply a force to the creature either. The same can be said for anything passing through the barrier, because the creature could be right up against the edge, and result in the same scenario.

So you either have a case where the creature and someone outside the barrier and both holding onto an object, yet to the fiend the object is an immovable object. In this case, why bother with fancy spells, you could quite literally throw a string net over the creature and it would dice them to pieces.

However, if all this is the case, then what you are EFFECTIVELY doing is forcing the barrier on the creature, and abjuration spells specifically cannot force their barriers onto creatures, otherwise they break: Ergo, jabbing a spear through the barrier will break the barrier.

I think the problem here is that you try to make sense of everything. Figure out how everything works deeper than the surface level, and let's face it. Magic is hocus pocus, It's not supposed to make sense so when you try to make sense of it nothing makes sense.

If we just use the english language, just english, when someone says disturb the diagram, we picture a guy spilling something on it, or stepping on it, or touching it, or physically altering it. Not hovering his hand over it. In fact if you ask is someone hovering over something disturbing it and they will all unanimously say no and point to the "I'm not touching you" childish game children play.

But here you try to figure out how the diagram functions and deduce it's a magical barrier. You now say the diagram is not a picture on the floor but a cylinder or a sphere when no text describes its shape or of this barrier's existence. And then you say touching the barrier from the outside is disturbing the barrier and therefore disturbing the diagram and therefore releases the creature. And you claim this barrier is disturbed even if magical spells with no matter or force affects the imprisoned creature like enervation. Suddenly we now have a new definition: Disturbing the creature is disturbing the diagram. This is not a real-world English definition, nor is it a term defined in the spell description or the glossary. You made it up from your attempt to make sense of d&d magic. Also if we use english, Laid over means physically on top.

Now I can do the same here. I can say the Diagram is just a picture, nothing more and when the creature tries to leave the circle a magical barrier is created reactively. As in it's only there when the creature attempts to leave the diagram and only so big as the part of the creature trying to leave the circle. So if his head is trying to leave the circle a barrier the size of his head is created to block it and then disappears when his head retreats.

I have just as much evidence for my interpretation as yours and mine does not say attacking the creature is disturbing the diagram and I did not invent any new terminology or definitions.

My point is don't try to figure out how the spell works using real world physics and just stick to the text. Disturbing the diagram is physically disturbing the diagram on the floor. Dispel Magic cast on the diagram from the outside does not disturb it unless it was successful.

[RoboEmperor]

Whoops, you're right.

But, since the radius is measured from the circle drawn on the ground, that means the height of the thing is only 10ft. A Pit Fiend is 12ft.

Or do you say that the spell in effect calls them in a hunched over position? We're house ruling at this stage, presumably.

Can a smushed up Pit Fiend fit in the area? if the answer is yes then yes he does fit in the area.

I think WotC meant magic circle to be a cylinder rather than a sphere in all the works/pictures/etc. I've seen. In any case both sphere centered around the creature or a sphere centered around the ground all fit a gargantuan sized outsider, smushed or not smushed.

[Oblivionsmurf]

Can a smushed up Pit Fiend fit in the area? if the answer is yes then yes he does fit in the area.

I think WotC meant magic circle to be a cylinder rather than a sphere in all the works/pictures/etc. I've seen. In any case both sphere centered around the creature or a sphere centered around the ground all fit a gargantuan sized outsider, smushed or not smushed.

Setting aside the rest of your quote, how does a gargantuan sized outsider fit into a sphere centered around the ground without being smushed?

[RoboEmperor]

Setting aside the rest of your quote, how does a gargantuan sized outsider fit into a sphere centered around the ground without being smushed?

Squeezing rules. Look it up. A 20x20x20 creature can fit into a 10x20x20 or 20x10x20 or 20x20x10 space.

[Crake]

But here you try to figure out how the diagram functions and deduce it's a magical barrier. You now say the diagram is not a picture on the floor but a cylinder or a sphere when no text describes its shape or of this barrier's existence.

The shape is described under the effect "10ft radius". The barrier is mentioned in the parent spell, protection from evil "It creates a magical barrier around the subject at a distance of 1 foot."

[RoboEmperor]

The shape is described under the effect "10ft radius". The barrier is mentioned in the parent spell, protection from evil "It creates a magical barrier around the subject at a distance of 1 foot."

It could be a barrier, it could be a aura that creates barrier, but most importantly if it is a barrier then it's a one-way barrier. Because the barrier doesn't protect your enemies from your spells and attacks. So an inward barrier would still be one way.

My point is I can fluff the whole thing a hundred different ways where I'm allowed to attack through it so stick to the english text and don't try to associate the diagram with anything other than the writing/pictures/symbols scrawled on the floor.

In a real life example, if some guy gets trapped by your cage, he is at your mercy.
In a MOBA example, if a player is caught out of position he is dead.
Planar Binding puts said target out of position and in a cage so he is dead if I will it. As long as there's a dimensional anchor spell on him he's dead because I control the environment and therefore I can make the fight 100:1. As I've repeatedly said if we were to follow your interpretation all the way it still won't stop the spell from being an infallible assassination spell. So not sure what you're trying to accomplish here.

[Oblivionsmurf]

Squeezing rules. Look it up. A 20x20x20 creature can fit into a 10x20x20 or 20x10x20 or 20x20x10 space.

Without being smushed.

Also, your Gargantuan creature's footprint is going to squeeze into a rectangle 20 ft by 10 ft. That rectangle is not going to fit into a circle with diameter 20ft. I reckon you could squeeze a Huge creature in there (but there's no evidence the spell works that way at all).

[Oblivionsmurf]

Can a smushed up Pit Fiend fit in the area? if the answer is yes then yes he does fit in the area.

While you're answering my previous post, I'm going to try and tackle this one.

The real question to me seems to be how does a called creature appear. Do they appear standing as per normal? Do they appear in a position dictated by the caster? Do they fit the space they are summoned in, as much as possible?

I think the answer has to be that they appear in their normal position. The Rules Compendium provides:


A creature or object brought into being or transported to your location by a conjuration spell can’t appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it. The creature or object must appear within the spell’s range, but it doesn’t have to remain within the range.

The Rules Compendium does not envisage that any creature called or summoned by a Conjuration spell will be squeezing when they appear, because they must arrive in an open location.

The description of Magic Circle likewise provides:


If a creature too large to fit into the spell’s area is the subject of the spell, the spell acts as a normal protection from evil spell for that creature only.

You can argue that the Planar Binding area is an open location while somehow still being a bounded area that the creature must (and does as part of the casting) squeeze into, but that seems a tortured interpretation to me.

[gogogome]

For what it's worth
1. I believe RoboEmperor is 100% correct on the matter concerning the diagram. As pointed out Crake is making assumptions not mentioned anywhere left and right. Disturbance of the Diagram is disturbance of the writing on the floor.
2. The magic circle can be any size you want. The area mentioned in the spell entry is for the normal usage only because it must be centered around a creature. The floor, a drawing, or an object are not creatures so when used as a trap it uses it's own rules. When used as a trap the spell constantly says it cannot cross the circle's boundaries meaning the shape of the trap is a cylinder not a sphere. Not once did the spell use the word sphere. If you read the text the circle is a circle of powdered silver of unknown dimensions because the spellcaster can make the dimensions any size he wants. The dimensions mentioned in the material component section of the spell is for assumes a medium or smaller PC because most large creatures cannot fit in a 3ft diameter circle.

[Oblivionsmurf]

2. The magic circle can be any size you want. The area mentioned in the spell entry is for the normal usage only because it must be centered around a creature. The floor, a drawing, or an object are not creatures so when used as a trap it uses it's own rules. When used as a trap the spell constantly says it cannot cross the circle's boundaries meaning the shape of the trap is a cylinder not a sphere. Not once did the spell use the word sphere. If you read the text the circle is a circle of powdered silver of unknown dimensions because the spellcaster can make the dimensions any size he wants. The dimensions mentioned in the material component section of the spell is for assumes a medium or smaller PC because most large creatures cannot fit in a 3ft diameter circle.

If we accept this interpretation, what work does the following passage of the text have to do:


If a creature too large to fit into the spell’s area is the subject of the spell, the spell acts as a normal protection from evil spell for that creature only.

If you can dictate the size of the circle, and it is a cylinder, no creature will ever be too large to fit into the spell's area.

[RoboEmperor]

2. The magic circle can be any size you want. The area mentioned in the spell entry is for the normal usage only because it must be centered around a creature. The floor, a drawing, or an object are not creatures so when used as a trap it uses it's own rules. When used as a trap the spell constantly says it cannot cross the circle's boundaries meaning the shape of the trap is a cylinder not a sphere. Not once did the spell use the word sphere. If you read the text the circle is a circle of powdered silver of unknown dimensions because the spellcaster can make the dimensions any size he wants. The dimensions mentioned in the material component section of the spell is for assumes a medium or smaller PC because most large creatures cannot fit in a 3ft diameter circle.

Yeah that's what I thought too. Crake is confusing the hell out of me atm, making me forget even the basics. It's because he does a great job making everything make sense even if they aren't correct by RAW.

Yeah it's coming back to me now.


A magic circle leaves much to be desired as a trap. If the circle of powdered silver laid down in the process of spellcasting is broken, the effect immediately ends. The trapped creature can do nothing that disturbs the circle, directly or indirectly,"

So the trap is a circle
The circle is powdered silver if arcane, pure magic if it's divine or the spellcaster has eschew materials therefore impervious to the wind for disruption
Can be any size you want
The "barrier" is a cylinder presumably with a roof so the creature can't fly out.
I was right in my example/analogy that the cage is 2ftx2ftx6ft if I wanted it to be


If we accept this interpretation, what work does the following passage of the text have to do:


If a creature too large to fit into the spell’s area is the subject of the spell, the spell acts as a normal protection from evil spell for that creature only.

If you can dictate the size of the circle, and it is a cylinder, no creature will ever be too large to fit into the spell's area.

When the spellcaster is a r***** and screws up by making the circle too small. Without this rule people will say the creature is sawed in half when he arrives.

[Oblivionsmurf]

Yeah that's what I thought too. Crake is confusing the hell out of me atm, making me forget even the basics. It's because he does a great job making everything make sense even if they aren't correct by RAW.

Yeah it's coming back to me now.



So the trap is a circle
The circle is powdered silver if arcane, pure magic if it's divine or the spellcaster has eschew materials therefore impervious to the wind for disruption
Can be any size you want
The "barrier" is a cylinder presumably with a roof so the creature can't fly out.
I was right in my example/analogy that the cage is 2ftx2ftx6ft if I wanted it to be

I repeat my earlier comment. If we accept this interpretation, what work does the following passage of the text have to do:


If a creature too large to fit into the spell’s area is the subject of the spell, the spell acts as a normal protection from evil spell for that creature only.

If you can dictate the size of the circle, and it is a cylinder, no creature will ever be too large to fit into the spell's area.

EDIT: Didn't see your edit above. I'll have a think about it, but it still seems a bit of an unnecessary provision to include if that is the only mischief it is intended to address (or, at least, they would have worded it differently).

[Crake]

Yeah that's what I thought too. Crake is confusing the hell out of me atm, making me forget even the basics. It's because he does a great job making everything make sense even if they aren't correct by RAW.

I had a good chuckle at that, and I'll take it as a compliment (and hope it was written as one).


Yeah it's coming back to me now.



So the trap is a circle
The circle is powdered silver if arcane, pure magic if it's divine or the spellcaster has eschew materials therefore impervious to the wind for disruption
Can be any size you want
The "barrier" is a cylinder presumably with a roof so the creature can't fly out.
I was right in my example/analogy that the cage is 2ftx2ftx6ft if I wanted it to be

This part here is you guys adding your own assumptions though: Nothing says the spell is adjustable in size. It's a 10ft radius emanation from the creature to be warded, whether it be focused inward or outward. Note that it says "If a creature too large to fit into the spell’s area is the subject of the spell, the spell acts as a normal protection from evil spell for that creature only. " It says the spell's area, not within the circle of powdered silver. It also says that the creature cannot cross the circle's boundaries, which is presumably referencing the spell (magic circle), and not the powdered silver, as the spell has a boundary in all 3 directions (it's a 10ft radius sphere).

Likewise, there's no mention of the 3ft diameter circle drawn in the material components section as being variable in size either, nor any mention of it being a cylinder with a decided height of which you specify.

[Keltest]

I repeat my earlier comment. If we accept this interpretation, what work does the following passage of the text have to do:


If a creature too large to fit into the spell’s area is the subject of the spell, the spell acts as a normal protection from evil spell for that creature only.

If you can dictate the size of the circle, and it is a cylinder, no creature will ever be too large to fit into the spell's area.

EDIT: Didn't see your edit above. I'll have a think about it, but it still seems a bit of an unnecessary provision to include if that is the only mischief it is intended to address (or, at least, they would have worded it differently).

This is 3.5. You could fill an entire sourcebook with nothing but the pointless little extra rule tidbits they threw in to head off random nonsense like that.

[Oblivionsmurf]

Yes, I think I agree, you have to be able to choose the size of the circle (else there would be a natural limit to the size of creatures you could ward using the normal operation of the spell). Good answer, gogogome.

[RoboEmperor]

I had a good chuckle at that, and I'll take it as a compliment (and hope it was written as one).

It was a compliment. I used to do that too when i started d&d but failed miserably in the end. You seemed to have made it work for you somehow which is why everything you say sounds so reasonable even though imo is incorrect at times.


This part here is you guys adding your own assumptions though: Nothing says the spell is adjustable in size. It's a 10ft radius emanation from the creature to be warded, whether it be focused inward or outward. Note that it says "If a creature too large to fit into the spell’s area is the subject of the spell, the spell acts as a normal protection from evil spell for that creature only. " It says the spell's area, not within the circle of powdered silver. It also says that the creature cannot cross the circle's boundaries, which is presumably referencing the spell (magic circle), and not the powdered silver, as the spell has a boundary in all 3 directions (it's a 10ft radius sphere).

Likewise, there's no mention of the 3ft diameter circle drawn in the material components section as being variable in size either, nor any mention of it being a cylinder with a decided height of which you specify.

You gotta realize the text is a failure no matter how you interpret it.

According to your interpretation there are two circles, Powdered Silver Circle(PSC) and Magic Circle (MC). According to you there is an inner PSC that is 3ft wide that acts as a focal point for the outer MC that is 20ft wide. BUT the PSC has to be sprinkled around the creature to be warded. That creature hasn't been called yet. So your interpretation fails here. Your interpretation also fails because the area is centered around a touched creatures. Called creatures are NEVER touched. And it's a bit silly to have an inner PSC circle that can't be disturbed but an outer MC circle that can be disturbed.

Our interpretation fails because the 3ft wide PSC isn't explicitly mentioned to be variable. And again there's no "creature" to create the circle around.

In other words some of these RAW texts have to give.

If we assume that all the stats for the spell is for the normal usage and the trap usage completely throws all of it out, like how it says its duration is 24hrs/level instead of 1, then we can make the spell work. The text says "can't cross diagram/circle" instead of repeating "Spell Area" to insinuate a sphere, your interpretation results in a hemisphere and every single artwork of planar binding i've ever seen was a cylinder, and IMO the text just makes much more sense if there is only one circle instead of two so...

Whatever, I think our interpretation makes more sense, and I'm too tired to read over the spell's text the hundredth time today so I'll concede that the spell is poorly written enough that your interpretation is valid too. Just like how you can't definitively say the trapped creature has protection of evil on it or not while it's trapped. I say no, others say yes, who knows, the spell's text is a failure. If you were my DM I would not contest because the biggest outsider I bind is the Ember Guard which is huge so all this doesn't matter to me.

[Crake]

It was a compliment. I used to do that too when i started d&d but failed miserably in the end. You seemed to have made it work for you somehow which is why everything you say sounds so reasonable even though imo is incorrect at times.



You gotta realize the text is a failure no matter how you interpret it.

According to your interpretation there are two circles, Powdered Silver Circle(PSC) and Magic Circle (MC). According to you there is an inner PSC that is 3ft wide that acts as a focal point for the outer MC that is 20ft wide. BUT the PSC has to be sprinkled around the creature to be warded. That creature hasn't been called yet. So your interpretation fails here. Your interpretation also fails because the area is centered around a touched creatures. Called creatures are NEVER touched. And it's a bit silly to have an inner PSC circle that can't be disturbed but an outer MC circle that can be disturbed.

Our interpretation fails because the 3ft wide PSC isn't explicitly mentioned to be variable. And again there's no "creature" to create the circle around.

In other words some of these RAW texts have to give.

If we assume that all the stats for the spell is for the normal usage and the trap usage completely throws all of it out, like how it says its duration is 24hrs/level instead of 1, then we can make the spell work. The text says "can't cross diagram/circle" instead of repeating "Spell Area" to insinuate a sphere, your interpretation results in a hemisphere and every single artwork of planar binding i've ever seen was a cylinder, and IMO the text just makes much more sense if there is only one circle instead of two so...

Whatever, I think our interpretation makes more sense, and I'm too tired to read over the spell's text the hundredth time today so I'll concede that the spell is poorly written enough that your interpretation is valid too. Just like how you can't definitively say the trapped creature has protection of evil on it or not while it's trapped. I say no, others say yes, who knows, the spell's text is a failure. If you were my DM I would not contest because the biggest outsider I bind is the Ember Guard which is huge so all this doesn't matter to me.

I'd certainly agree that the spell isn't very well defined, and it's times like this that the DM has to make judgement calls. In my world I actually support the sphere idea by having permanent magic circles (wondrous architecture) actually be built into the ground to allow for the larger creatures to be summoned and bound. The use of wondrous architecture also allows for planar binding to also be used as a permanent trap, allowing the bound creature to be held indefinitely until the circle is either disturbed by an outside force (someone finding the cage) or simply due to the erosion of time. Funnily enough, despite my mentioning that using the spell you way should result in a name change, using it as a permanent trap still holds true to the name, as the creature is certainly bound if nothing else :smalltongue:

[gogogome]

If we're throwing everything out and going solely by the text then the 10ft emanation area doesn't exist. You need a new area which is defined by the powdered circle.

[Crake]

If we're throwing everything out and going solely by the text then the 10ft emanation area doesn't exist. You need a new area which is defined by the powdered circle.

But then the powdered circle (which doesn't exist in the divine version, or with eschew materials) is only 3ft diameter, and with no existing text to support increasing it's size. I think we all need to agree that, as Robo said, the spell is ill defined, and thus needs DM adjudication.

[AMFV]

This is long so I'm going to address the pertinent points of the OP,but I have not read the entiriety of the thread.


I'm putting all of my compiled Planar Binding RAW and RAI here for easy reference.
This quote is very important as it establishes a couple of very important facts.
1. Compel is INVOLUNTARY. Non consensual. Forced. So when lesser planar binding says "compel the creature to perform a service" it doesn't mean entice it with bribes and rewards, it means force it into complete submission by overwhelming it with your personality/willpower/charisma.

A.) My boss compels me to get up and go in to work otherwise I will lose my employment. He is forcing me to do a thing that I would rather not be doing, am I a slave? When I was in the military my NCOs often compelled me to do things that I would have otherwise chosen not to do, was I enslaved?

B.) If you're adding the bit about personality, my wife compels me to do things like buy her flowers, because her personality coerces me into doing that, if I wasn't so interested in her personality and charisma, I would probably have not bought flowers. Am I enslaved by my wife?



2. Eternal Bondage and Servitude is NOT an unreasonable command.
Note that this is NOT a special interaction between the Bind Elemental feat and Planar Binding. The above quote clearly states that you must use Planar Binding's charisma check as-is, completely unmodified, to use this feat.


You do realize that the point of the Charisma check is to convince the creature to do as you ask, yes? Charisma is what's used in terms of diplomacy, here you are convincing a creature through your general force of personality to do what you want. It's not forcible coercion in all cases to do so, although arguably in some it could be.



Official 3.5 material that states you can FORCE a creature to do your bidding and that bribes and rewards are OPTIONAL.

True, and if you were "forcing" a creature to do something without payment, that might be considered slavery. But there is no requirement that you do so, you can choose to fairly compensate a creature, in which case the arrangement is not slavery at all. You can even choose to dismiss the spell if the creature doesn't agree to it.

I mean a person could use fireball to commit arson, that doesn't mean that the fireball spell is arson. A person could use dominate person to commit sexual assault, that doesn't make all uses of dominate person sexual assault. Just because you can do something with a spell doesn't make all uses of that spell that thing.



Official 3.5 material that states that FREEDOM from the cage/magic circle is the PAYMENT.

That is a form of payment, ask people who have court-ordered rehabilitation of any sort if freedom is a form of payment or not. And also there is no requirement that it be the only sort of payment. Just because it is possible to use it in that fashion (and that may likely constitute a form of slavery) doesn't render all uses to be a form of slavery.



Official 3.5 material that states servitude for a fixed number of days is NOT an open ended task.


I'm not sure what the point you are getting at here is. The fixed number of days is likely actually an argument against this being a slave situation, since slavery tends to be for life rather than for a fixed number of days.



Official example of a wizard using Planar Binding to enslave an outsider and use it as an expendable minion going so far as to cause friendly fire. The bound outsider has no choice but to take the friendly fire and continue serving the wizard.

In the military, a person can be ordered to risk their own lives, are they slaves? In my job, I have been ordered to do things that were very dangerous, and I'm not a slave. If I hadn't done those things, in the military I could have been put into prison, and in my own job I could be fired.



All of the above quotes which are from multiple source books all say Planar Binding is slavery so it is completely clear without a doubt that WotC wanted players to use Planar Binding to make outsiders their slaves.

It is completely clear that a player could use the spell in that fashion. But it is not inherently a requirement in the spell to do so. In fact the option to use wages and enticements suggests that it could be used in alternative fashion.



So if a DM says Planar Binding is consensual

And nothing you've said prevents it from being so. It only allows that it not be. I mean just because something exists dose not make it nonconsensual if there is an option to consent to it. It only becomes slavery if the player in question (or the NPC) forces the creature to do things they don't want to using it.



or if a DM says Planar Binding requires payment

It does, freedom from the circle is inherently a form of payment.



or if a DM says that free service is an "unreasonable command"

Here you have to remember that all outsiders are different, for some of them, that might certainly be the case depending on their makeup and alignment.



or if a DM says serving you for a fixed number of days is an open ended task

You are correct here. Although I would adjudicate that certain actions make the service subject to an additional check since otherwise it would be open-ended.



or if a DM says an outsider with spellcraft can just decide to wait 15 days until Magic Circle ends and never give you a charisma check

That depends on the outsider. If you have some way to force it to pay attention to you, then that is correct. But if it chooses to ignore you or deliberately dampens it's senses you might be out of luck. Of course a lot of extraplanar creatures would be so bored by this as to be completely unable to sit around for 15 days, this is why a character should do research prior to attempting the spell