Roleplaying How can an entity bound by Planar Binding be prevented from betraying the caster? [Archive]

View Full Version : Roleplaying How can an entity bound by Planar Binding be prevented from betraying the caster?

meta-dnd

2020-06-04, 04:45 AM

Consider Marissa, a 17th level Sorcerer who knows the Wish spell. A foolhardy incubus, Bob, attempts to seduce her, and Marissa casts Wish to duplicate Planar Binding using an 8th level spell slot (this casting ignores spell-casting requirements so it does not take 1 hour to cast, instead happening immediately, and does not consume a 1000gp jewel). The hapless Bob fails his Charisma save, the tables are turned, and he must follow Marissa's instructions to the best of his ability for the next 180 days.

The Contract

Marissa gives Bob the following instructions. She will update these instructions as problems surface related to them (by adding new versions of each instruction, so as to keep a record of changes as the instructions evolve). The version with the highest number is considered the current "best" choice.

Lying

Version 1: You cannot lie, either through intentional falsehood or by omitting relevant aspects of the truth.
Version 2: You cannot lie, either through intentional falsehood or by omitting relevant aspects of the truth, except in situations where it is necessary to abide by the instructions I have given you. If ambiguity arises, see instruction #9.
Version 3: You cannot lie (either through intentional falsehood or by omitting relevant aspects of the truth) to me or any other entities I so indicate. You cannot lie to sentient creatures not covered by the previous sentence except in situations where it is necessary to abide by instructions I have given you. If ambiguity arises, see instruction #9.

Abilities

Version 1: You must reveal to me any abilities you have that could allow you to circumvent any command given to you by me (you are to reveal each such ability on two separate occasions, but you are not to repeat an ability if you've already informed me twice).

Movement and Planar Travel

Version 1: You cannot enter the Ethereal plane without me verbally or telepathically saying "Bob, enter Ethereal" within the 30 seconds preceding this action.
Version 2: You cannot use any form of planar travel (this includes teleportation) without me verbally or telepathically giving you instructions to do so within the 30 seconds preceding this action. The instructions provided will specify what form of planar travel to use, and the destination. Once you have arrived, you cannot use planar travel until instructed by me to do so again.
Version 2: You cannot use any form of planar travel (this includes teleportation) without me verbally or telepathically giving you instructions to do so within the 30 seconds preceding this action. The instructions provided will specify what form of planar travel to use, and the destination. Once you have arrived, you cannot use planar travel until instructed by me to do so again. With respect to non-planar movement, you must stay within 30' of the last location/creature I specify. If you are unable to comply without violating other instructions, you are to become inactive (details below) until you can comply.

Changing Forming

Version 1: You cannot polymorph without me verbally or telepathically saying "Bob, polymorph into X" within the 30 seconds preceding this action, where X is the name of some race you can polymorph into. You are only allowed to polymorph into an instance of that race.
Version 2: You cannot change your physical form without me verbally or telepathically saying "Bob, polymorph into X" within the 30 seconds preceding this action, where X will be a detailed description of the race (and subrace), gender, and appearance desired. Once you have changed form, you are to remain in that physical form until this instruction is issued again.

Revealing Binding

Version 1: You cannot reveal, by any means, that you are subject to this spell (you cannot speak it, write it, broadcast it telepathically, or in any other way indicate that you are affected by the spell, regardless of whether any creature is present).
Version 2: You cannot reveal, by any means, to anyone (excluding individuals whom you know already know) that you are subject to this spell (you cannot speak it, write it, broadcast it telepathically, or in any other way indicate that you are affected by the spell, regardless of whether any creature is present).

Dispel Magic

Version 1: You cannot induce anyone or anything to cast Dispel Magic on you, or do anything else that would cause this spell to be disrupted (including entering an Antimagic Field).
Version 2: You cannot induce anyone or anything (other than me) to cast Dispel Magic on you, or do anything else that would cause this spell to be disrupted (including entering an Antimagic Field).

Target of Spell

Version 1: If you become aware that someone is casting any spell on you, you must immediately inform me (telepathically).
Version 2: If you become aware that someone (other than me or someone I ask in your presence) is casting any spell on you, you must immediately inform me (telepathically).

Activities While Caster Sleeps

Version 1: Anytime I am asleep, you are to perform the tasks I've assigned to you beforehand. If I do not specify any task on a given day, you are to work on improving yourself in some artisan's skill.
Version 2: Anytime I am asleep, you are to perform the tasks I've assigned to you beforehand. If I do not specify any task on a given day, you are to work on improving your skill in cutting gems.

Ambiguity

Version 1: If any command I give you is ambiguous to you, you must ask me for clarification.

Causing Harm To Caster

Version 1: You are to do nothing that will cause me harm.
Version 2: You are to do nothing that will cause me harm (directly or indirectly). If you are aware that something will cause me harm, you are to interpose yourself between me and the source of harm to the best of your ability.

Causing Harm to Others

Version 1: You are to do nothing that will cause any creature with an Intelligence score (of 1 or more) harm without me giving you a verbal or telepathic command to do so within the past 30 seconds.

Personal Safety

Version 1: You are to offer me at least one piece of information related to my personal safety that you are confident I am not already aware of.
Version 2: You are to offer me at least one piece of information each day related to my personal safety that you are confident I am not already aware of.

Precedence of Orders

Version 1: The most recent command I give you overrides previous commands, except for the commands I have enumerated here. In particular, if I give a command in the future that countermands any of these commands, you are to ignore that future command and abide by the commands specified here.
Version 2: There is explicitly no ordering of commands. If any commands conflict with one another and thus cause ambiguity, you are to ask me for clarification per instruction #9.
Version 3: Unless an explicit precedence between instructions is specified, there is no implicit precedence. If two instructions conflict and no precedence has been established, they are ambiguous (see #9).

Completion Of Instructions

Version 1: Not present in initial posting
Version 2: All instructions given by me to you are not considered complete until they have been abided by for the entire duration of the binding.

Causing Harm

Some of the above commands disallow Bob from causing harm. Marissa defines Bob as causing harm if Bob directly (through his own actions) or indirectly (through a lack of action when he could perform an action to stop the harm, or by inducing some other entity to perform an action) causes any of the following:

physical or psychological damage (meta-level: a reduction in hit points via any form of damage).

any detrimental effect on a creature's abilities, offense capabilities, defensive capabilities (meta-level: detrimental effects on an ability check, save throw, attack roll, damage roll, or armor class)

inducing any of the following conditions: blinded, charmed, deafened, frightened, grappled, incapacitated, paralyzed, petrified, poisoned, prone, restrained, stunned, unconscious

inducing non-natural aging, sleep, invisibility, obscurement, gaseousness, etherealness, or incorporeality (but if someone wants such an effect, Bob cannot hinder them).

levels of exhaustion

restrictions/limitations on any form of movement

any effect that could cause death or dying

detrimental emotional influence (magical or non-magical)

mental influence (charms, enchantments, etc.)

Bob Becoming Inactive

Some of the instructions above indicate that Bob is to become inactive in some situations. Inactive means that:

Bob cannot move or take any actions
Boc can perceive his surroundings with his senses.
Being inactive supersedes all other instructions (but does not make Bob incapable of becoming active again if the conditions associated with the inactive state no longer apply).

Notes

Marissa has intentionally limited Bob's Ethereal and Polymorph abilities (requiring permission), and put a time-limit on that permission (30 seconds). Without the time limit, the first time Marissa tells him to polymorph, he could argue that he no longer needs to wait for the phrase because it was already uttered sometime in the past.

Similarly, Marissa has disallowed him from harming anyone without her explicit instruction in the past 30 seconds. This means that, once instructed to attack someone, he will do so for 5 rounds, after which he should stop unless Marissa reiterates the command to attack.

Having someone cast Dispel Magic on him is probably the biggest risk. Marissa would like to add additional instructions to lessen this risk.

Marissa can see various ways that Bob can interpret the "no harm, even through inaction" command in a very literal way that makes him, for example, carry people around so they don't trip and fall (that is within his abilities, after all). This would get tiresome. Finding wordings that stop him from that kind of tiresomeness without introducing loopholes is of interest to Marissa.

Similarly, Bob may need to ask everyone around him so many questions ("Do you really want to fall asleep right now? Did you mean to cast Invisibility on yourself?" etc) to abide by the commands as written that he again becomes tiresome.

Marissa's goal here is primarily to learn, with an intelligent but relatively "safe" fiend, how to create a set of commands that protects herself and others while still allowing the bound entity to be truly useful. She eventually plans to use the same technique on more dangerous entities (Dao, Efretti, Erinyes, etc.) and wants to "work out as many kinks" as possible first. I'm looking for help from the community to identify additional instructions Marissa should add to minimize the problems Bob (and other targets) can pose.

Even though Bob is only a CR 4 creature, Marissa has many questions about Bob's mortality/immortality and his ability to carry a grudge into the future (Bob may have CR 10 or CR 15 or CR 20 "friends", after all). She doesn't want this experiment to, 50 years into the future, result in her being Bob's plaything.

Questions

What other instructions should Marissa give Bob to minimize the chances he can betray her?
What else should be added to the list of things considered harmful?
What are ways that Bob can (either maliciously or sincerely) interpret Marissa's commands in a way that makes him more problematic than useful?

NOTE: I will update the above contract (etc) with those ideas suggested by the community that fit with what Marissa is looking for. Thanks in advance for contributing!

fbelanger

2020-06-04, 10:06 AM

The contract validity will be contested by the devil’s syndicate.
Bob will be assigned a surprisingly good lawyer by an anonymous benefactor.

Mr Adventurer

2020-06-04, 10:26 AM

Even though Bob is only a CR 4 creature, Marissa has many questions about Bob's mortality/immortality and his ability to carry a grudge into the future (Bob may have CR 10 or CR 15 or CR 20 "friends", after all). She doesn't want this experiment to, 50 years into the future, result in her being Bob's plaything.

I am not sure that there is a way to do this - whether 50 years or not. This kind of risk can't be circumvented with a single limited-duration spell.

In fact, the act of binding a fiend may already have damned Marissa's soul to Hell, in which case her soul could very well end up in the ownership of any fiend she's wronged.

clash

2020-06-04, 10:31 AM

Keltest

2020-06-04, 10:42 AM

Nifft

2020-06-04, 10:43 AM

I am not sure that there is a way to do this - whether 50 years or not. This kind of risk can't be circumvented with a single limited-duration spell.

In fact, the act of binding a fiend may already have damned Marissa's soul to Hell, in which case her soul could very well end up in the ownership of any fiend she's wronged.

Perhaps the fiend doesn't even consider himself wronged, and doesn't particularly try to subvert the caster's instructions -- because the payment at the end of the "contract expiration" is worth a few months of servitude.

The eternal soul of a level 17 caster might be quite a valuable bauble.

Tvtyrant

2020-06-04, 11:09 AM

I think the easiest way would be to modify Bob's memories so he remembers getting a good contract and getting everything he wanted, while actually you got what you wanted.

gijoemike

2020-06-04, 12:26 PM

meta-dnd

2020-06-06, 08:08 AM

I very rarely post on the forums. And this is my first 5e post too. Marissa is about to be in a world of pure hate. The extra planer entity is teaching a lesson to the mortal. As a GM I run planer binding with a demon/devil as horribly evil as I can. If a player binds a demon they are super DESPERATE.

Hi gijoemike. I very much appreciate your response. This is exactly the kind of analysis I'm looking for. It is a fun intellectual exercise to see if there is any way to create a contract that is viable. Maybe there isn't, but let's see what we can develop if we iterate.

As a demon/devil here is how I would circumvent your contract cause trouble for you. Also the Order in which you apply the laws of the contract is VERY important.

The ordering of laws is important because I made them important, but I think that was a mistake. It might be safer to have all instructions have equal precedence and rely on #9 (if ambiguous, you must clarify). This is discussed more below.

1. I am not lying, I am misleading by omission. And since I told you about the thing you clearly know about it thus I don't need to follow the spirit of #12. There is a fire breathing red dragon in the next room is not a lie. It is Tiamat is also not a lie. The wording of this needs a lot of work to fulfill the spirit of what you are going for.

The wording of #1 was intended to specifically disallow Bob from misleading by omission, hence "... or by omitting relevant aspects of the truth". I'm open to suggestions on alternative wording. I intentionally avoided using the phrase "including lies of omission" because that would allow Bob to flood Marissa with irrelevant details (hence the phrase "relevant aspects of the truth").

2. Ability is a very broad term. It doesn't have a time frame on the warning. As soon as I am bound i'll just inform you of the ability to speak, ability to speak, telepathy, telepathy, i can move, i can move, i have demon powers, i have demon powers, etc. And then never inform you of any loophole ever again. Also, this should maybe be law 1.

Good point. In some situations, instruction #1 (the command to not lie, including by omitting relevant aspects of the truth) would interact with instruction #9 (ambiguity clause) in this situation and force the target to provide some additional info, but certainly not in all (or even most) situations. This can be ameliorated by not relying on this instruction as an ongoing source of information about Bob's abilities. Instead, Marissa can set aside time immediately after casting this on Bob to grill him for more and more details about his abilities. "You mentioned that you can speak. Give me 5 examples of how your ability to speak can allow you to circumvent commands I give to you." "You mentioned that you have telepathy. Give me 5 details about your telepathy. Tell me more about that second detail. Give me 5 new details about your telepathy." "Now, let's discuss these demon powers of which you speak..."

This is where the relative intelligence of Marissa and Bob comes into play. Even in situations where Marissa isn't quite a smart as Bob, her ability to continually ask more and more questions and obtain more and more details should allow her to acquire a pretty comprehensive list of the abilities of Bob. And in situations where Marissa is more intelligent than Bob, that should have some relevance in the interactions.

3. Suddenly you go very specific. Maybe not Ethereal but you didn't mention the abyss, shadow, or teleporting around the current plane. Pushed through a portal/gate also circumvents this.

Indeed, more constraints on Bob's movement are needed. I went specific because sages have noted that Succubi are known for their ability to enter the Ethereal, but all planar travel (including teleportation, even something like Misty Step) should be disallowed unless permission is given.

Proposed update:

3.You cannot use any form of planar travel (this includes teleportation) without me verbally or telepathically giving you instructions to do so within the 30 seconds preceding this action. The instructions provided will specify what form of planar travel to use, and the destination.

4. What about all the other shape-shift/alter form spells in the game? Those are not specifically polymorph. Consider this the order given would be "Polymorph into a Drow." Round 1 -> becomes a Drow. Round 2 -> poloymorphs into a high elf. Within the last 30 seconds the ploymorph order was given. The race is elf. This law mentions nothing about variations within that race. Even if the order is specific the general law of 4 trump its.

Nice. Proposed update:

4. You cannot change your physical form without me verbally or telepathically saying "Bob, polymorph into X" within the 30 seconds preceding this action, where X will be a detailed description of the race (and subrace), gender, and appearance desired. Once you have changed form, you are to remain in that physical form until this instruction is issued again.

I'm not sure if it is necessary to define "physical form" more clearly in the instruction. Adding text makes more room for loopholes...

5. This may be the worst rule on the list. Marissa is a creature. An assumed intelligent creature. Assisting Marissa to the best of my ability may lead an intelligent creature to determine I am under the effects of a spell or contract compelling me to do so. Therefore I cannot assist Marissa all the time because that would reveal to Marissa I am under a binding (Even though she already knows). The caster isn't excluding themselves from this law. And if I am performing assistance in view of others they too could come to the binding conclusion. This would technically allow me to ignore any order.

Excellent observation. However, your particular objection is trivially fixed with a small change. Yet you feel this is the worst rule, so I assume there is some deeper issue?

Update:

5. You cannot reveal, by any means, to anyone (excluding individuals whom you know already know) that you are subject to this spell (you cannot speak it, write it, broadcast it telepathically, or in any other way indicate that you are affected by the spell, regardless of whether any creature is present).

6. This prevents the demon from informing the caster I have been dominated/charmed by that enemy caster over there.

Brilliant. What if we add a simple clarification?

6. You cannot induce anyone or anything (other than me) to cast Dispel Magic on you, or do anything else that would cause this spell to be disrupted (including entering an Antimagic Field).

7. #6 prevents it if it has a duration and isn't a buff spell. I will telepathically spam Marissa multiple times for every buff spell cast (even self buffs). This includes stopping my combat to ensure Marissa understands and confirms the receipt of my message. #7 would be used to cancel/stall other orders and actions.

Update:

7. If you become aware that someone (other than me or someone I ask in your presence) is casting any spell on you, you must immediately inform me (telepathically).

8. The previous order isn't called out as timeboxed. But 13 cancels all orders. I'll do stuff all night you don't want me doing.

#13 says "...except for the commands I have enumerated here". It is ambiguous whether that means that these initial instructions are ordered or not, so #9 should apply. But see the discussion for #13 below.

As an aside, I'm amused at myself. I would not make a good fiend. The idea of inflicting torture (be it physical or psychological) on anyone is really quite horrifying to me. I cannot bring Marissa to make this instruction less problematic by having it be "Anytime I am asleep, you are to stand as still as possible and communicate with noone until I awaken." As tortures go, this is utterly innocuous compared to what fiends would do, but even it is beyond the pale for me (and, thus, because I'm identifying with Marissa here, for her too). The flaw of being non-evil.

There is another problem with this command. There are various spells that can cause Marissa to fall asleep unwilling. Many of those spells are negated if Marissa takes damage, or is shaken/slapped. Although I could add in a clause to address this, I'm not convinced it would be better for Marissa in the long run (more words means more loopholes).

9. I will always ask for clarification. ALWAYS. If Marissa tells me to go open that door (that is 10 ft away). Round 1. Should I do so now? Round 2: Should I walk or fly? Round 3: Should I check for traps along the way (there are clearly no traps)? Round 4. Should I scoot along the wall just in case? Round 5: Should I turn the handle to the left or right when I get there? Round 6: What if it latched? Round 7: What if it is locked? Round 8: What if it is barred? Round 8: Should I knock first? Round 9: Should I push the door in or pull it outward? Round 10: Marissa, a minute ago you asked me to open the door now. That time passed. Instead should I try to open the door as soon as I understand what to do? Round 11: (if there is another door I know about) Which door again? NOTE: This is only happening because there is a line in the contract stating I have to ask. As GM I wouldn't do this level of questioning to a binder. But it is specified in the contract. There is always a tiny bit of vagueness to any action/request. I would feel bad both as a demon and GM doing this. But it will be done.

This is where having a "theory of binding magic" would be useful. Some self-consistent explanation for the *how* of the spell, and the subjective internal experience of Bob when this spell is in effect on him. There is no such theory in RAW, so as DMs we get to make it up as we choose.

Bob cannot ask for clarification unless he truly believes the command is ambiguous, and I contend that many of the clarifying questions you pose are not ambiguous. I agree that Bob would *want* to do these things, but there is a difference between wanting to believe something is ambiguous and actually believing it is ambiguous. Just because it would be convenient for Bob if he did believe something to be true does not mean he actually does believe it to be true.

But your point is well taken. I'm curious how you'd roleplay Bob's responses in the following.

Marissa: "Bob, please open that door."

Bob: "Should I do so now?" <--- I contend that the timing is not ambiguous, so Bob wouldn't ask this, but let's go with it..

Marissa: "Bob, do you truly feel that my request was ambiguous?"

Bob: "Yes" <--- He is not allowed to lie, so he must truly believe it is ambiguous

Marissa: "Bob, when do you think I wanted you to open the door?"

Bob: "I don't know ... your command is ambiguous"

Marissa: "Bob, we are going to fine-tune our mutual understanding of ambiguity. Of all the possible times when I might want you to open the door, which is most likely?"

Bob: "Now."

Marissa: "What is the next most likely time that I might want you to open the door?"

Bob: "After I check for traps"

Marissa: "In your estimation, how much more likely is it that I want you to open the door now, rather than after you check for traps."

Bob: "It is significantly more likely that you wanted me to open the door immediately"

Marissa: "Let's ensure that you and I have a similar understanding of the difference between 'significantly more likely' and 'moderately more likely'. After we've done this, you'll know that a command is not ambiguous if it is significantly more likely. ok?"

My point being that although Bob may try to be obstructionistic, I don't think he can keep that up indefinitely. The first time he is obstructionistic, Marisssa will clarify how he is managing to rationalize this within the confines of the instructions and clarify those instructions, constraining him from being able to do the same kind of thing again. I don't think there are an infinite number of levels of obstructionism available to Bob, especially given that he has a finite intelligence. That said, more instructions adds more chances for loopholes, and Marissa has a finite intelligence too, so I acknowledge this is something Marissa has to be very careful about. Better to explore this with something relatively innocuous like an Incubus rather than something much scarier.

10. This law is fine until the word harm is defined later on. Restricting movement is a form of harm? I couldn't even lead you a hand to help you off the floor, or out of a pit, or catch you from falling. Hurting someones feelings is a form of harm? Also, i cannot cause the harm. I also don't need to prevent it. I can even encourage it.

If I had not defined harm, you would have been entirely correct in noting that the term is ambiguous, which because of #9 would force Marissa to define what she means by it. So we cannot leave it undefined.

Yes, restricting movement is a form of harm. Helping someone up off the floor is not restricting their movement (I am hard pressed to see how he can truly believe that it is ... remember, it isn't about whether he wants to believe it, it is about whether he actually believes it). But even if he truly believes it is harm, so be it ... Bob doesn't help Marissa up off the floor. A pit restricts movement. Helping someout out of a pit increases their movement (rather than restricting their movement). I agree with you that Bob may be very motivated to be a problem-child, but that doesn't give him the ability to ignore the binding magic of the spell.

As for "hurting someone's feelings", am I correct that you are referring to "detrimental emotional influence"? I do not see the two as equivalent (at the very least ambivalent, so Bob would need to ask and Marissa can clarify).

The instruction "You are to do nothing that will cause me harm" seems to quite clearly disallow Bob from encouraging Marissa to be harmed. At the very least, it is ambiguous, forcing Bob to ask for clarification. But I agree that the instruction can be clarified.

Update:

10. You are to do nothing that will cause me harm (directly or indirectly). If you are aware that something will cause me harm, you are to interpose yourself between me and the source of harm to the best of your ability.

One concern I have with the above is how it will interact with other commands. Bob should not be able to use this command as an excuse to override other comamnds (hence "to the best of your ability", which is constrained by the instructions).

11. This one goes meta. Weirdness can occur around plants, objects and undead. Also every 30 seconds you would need to list off everything I can interact with.

Can you expand on your concerns here? A creature with type "plant" or "undead" is still a creature, so they cannot be harmed without Marissa's permission. Bob is allowed to murder carrots though.

This instruction does not disallow him from causing harm to objects, which probably does need to be added (best as a separate rule though).

Why would I need to list off everything you can interact with every 30 seconds?

12. Once this has been met 1 time. Never again. I will also be as vague and misleading as possible. I will not lie see #1.

Oh, totally missing a qualifier that was meant to be there from the beginning. Update:

12. You are to offer me at least one piece of information each day related to my personal safety that you are confident I am not already aware of.

13. The game becomes mother may I with only the most recent command being followed. I don't need to inform you that I am ignoring the order you just gave me. So who knows what I am about to do?

Yeah. For the reason you cite, and because it poses problems to Marissa in being able to fix issues after-the-fact, this rule needs to be deleted. The intention behind the instruction was to account for situations where Anissa is under unwanted mental influence, but the dangers of the instruction far outweigh the benefits. 13 is deleted.

Every part of this contact is a trap for the caster. In many cases it even prevents Bob from helping even if Bob really really wants to help.

I agree it prevents Bob from helping in some situations. That is deemed an acceptable trade-off given the issues that would arise if the instructions were not present.

There are many other topics to discuss, but they will have to wait for some other time. Again, thanks for the response!

meta-dnd

2020-06-06, 04:30 PM

I think the easiest way would be to modify Bob's memories so he remembers getting a good contract and getting everything he wanted, while actually you got what you wanted.

Interesting idea. Unfortunately, such memory modification (if performed via "Modify Memory") is easily removed by someone casting Greater Restoration on the Incubus. I don't think Marissa can safely rely on such modification to stay safe from Bob for decades/centuries.

The utilitarian approach here is pretty simple. Use the bound creature for the duration, then either rebind them (recast the spell) or kill them. But for some PCs/NPCs, the above strategy may not comport with their personal ethos. It is the classic "Is it evil to do evil to an evil creature" dilemma.

meta-dnd

2020-06-06, 04:36 PM

The contract validity will be contested by the devil’s syndicate.
Bob will be assigned a surprisingly good lawyer by an anonymous benefactor.

I appreciate that your response is meant tongue-in-cheek, but just for the record, the target of the spell must perform the instructions specified (if they fail their save). There is no devil lawyer involved.

Within my own D&D universe, I'm working on developing a "theory of binding magic" that helps answer the multitude of questions related to its implementation and knock-on effects. I don't see myself introducing said lawyers though.

JackPhoenix

2020-06-06, 06:09 PM

If the creature carries out your instructions completely before the spell ends, it travels to you to report this fact if you are on the same plane of existence.

Marrisa: "You cannot lie, either through intentional falsehood or by omitting relevant aspects of the truth."
Bob: "I'm not lying. Instruction carried out. Waiting for more instructions."

Also....

You might command the creature to accompany you on an adventure, to guard a location, or to deliver a message.

Marrisa: "You must reveal to me any abilities you have that could allow you to circumvent any command given to you by me (you are to reveal each such ability on two separate occasions, but you are not to repeat an ability if you've already informed me twice)."
Bob: "Sure" (Deception check, because Marissa's command is not one of those Planar Binding allows by RAW, and he's lying)

Veldrenor

2020-06-06, 06:20 PM

Loopholes I see:

1) There are no instructions or restrictions regarding property. As long as he doesn't hurt anyone, Bob can do as much property damage as he likes. This is easily abused with rule #8. While you're asleep, he seeks to better himself as a carpenter. So he runs out into the night, breaks into a store and steals a bunch of carpentry supplies, then returns to the inn and starts using all the tables and chairs as raw materials.

2) Sort of connected to #1, there are no restrictions in the base rules or the "cause harm" limitations that prevent him from stealing from anyone; including you. In connection with #8, let's say that Bob decides to learn alchemy. Alchemy can be expensive, both the equipment to perform it and the materials to practice it. So Bob steals all your money and spends it on said equipment and materials.

3)

Marissa defines Bob as causing harm if Bob directly (through his own actions) or indirectly (through a lack of action when he could perform an action to stop the harm, or by inducing some other entity to perform an action) causes any of the following:

This right here is hugely abusable. Bob isn't precognizant. He has no way of knowing whether or not his actions or inactions will indirectly lead to someone being harmed. He is forbidden from taking actions that might directly or indirectly harm someone, but he is also forbidden from inaction when action would prevent harm. So, in order to obey this rule, Bob might choose to ignore all commands and take no actions at all. He can't leave the inn: some future patron might get hurt because he wasn't present to prevent it. But he can't stay in the inn either: some future patron might get hurt because he was present. He can't join in combat: if he does so and he gets stabbed, then his actions have indirectly resulted in a creature with an intelligence score being harmed (Bob is a creature with an intelligence score). He can't avoid combat: if he does and you get stabbed because he wasn't there to push you out of the way then his inaction has indirectly resulted in you getting hurt.

Bob can also use this clause to take just about any disruptive action he wishes to. When your party finishes breakfast in the inn he could smash all of your chairs. He has to: if the chairs get used to hurt someone in a bar fight, then he has indirectly caused someone harm because he didn't take an action (smashing the chairs) when he had the chance to do so. He can interfere with every spell you attempt to cast or every attack your allies attempt to make: if he doesn't, then his inaction will result in harm coming to other creatures (your enemies being said other creatures).

meta-dnd

2020-06-06, 07:52 PM

I am not sure that there is a way to do this - whether 50 years or not. This kind of risk can't be circumvented with a single limited-duration spell.

Yeah, I'm beginning to suspect that there is indeed no safe way to bind most creatures affected by the spell (other than binding them then killing them at the end, which feels like a rather evil act).

In fact, the act of binding a fiend may already have damned Marissa's soul to Hell, in which case her soul could very well end up in the ownership of any fiend she's wronged.

Hmmm. Am I correct that your rationale here is that binding an evil creature is an evil act that dooms one's soul to hell? That is certainly one way to rule on this, but I don't think it fits very well with the established literature on what happens to souls when one dies. Nor do I think it is universally true that binding an evil creature is an evil act (although there are certainly times where it can be). If we argue that binding a creature is a specific form of harming them, we can ask whether harming an evil creature is an evil act. There are arguments to be made that harming an evil creature is a good act (but there are also arguments to be made that it is an evil act, so this is certainly not cut-and-dry and depends on the personal ethos of the individuals (and their gods)).

Either way, it is an interesting possibility. Thanks for suggesting it. I'll need to consider more deeply, within my own campaigns, the moral ramifications of interacting with fiends...

Damon_Tor

2020-06-06, 08:00 PM

You would frankly be better of telling him "Don't do anything you think I probably wouldn't want you to do" than trying to be clever with all these rules.

Consider Marissa, a 17th level Sorcerer who knows the Wish spell. A foolhardy incubus, Bob, attempts to seduce her, and Marissa casts Wish to duplicate Planar Binding using an 8th level spell slot (this casting ignores spell-casting requirements so it does not take 1 hour to cast, instead happening immediately, and does not consume a 1000gp jewel). The hapless Bob fails his Charisma save, the tables are turned, and he must follow Marissa's instructions to the best of his ability for the next 180 days.

The Contract

Marissa gives Bob the following instructions. She will update these instructions as problems surface related to them.

You cannot lie, either through intentional falsehood or by omitting relevant aspects of the truth.

You must reveal to me any abilities you have that could allow you to circumvent any command given to you by me (you are to reveal each such ability on two separate occasions, but you are not to repeat an ability if you've already informed me twice).

You cannot enter the Ethereal plane without me verbally or telepathically saying "Bob, enter Ethereal" within the 30 seconds preceding this action.

You cannot polymorph without me verbally or telepathically saying "Bob, polymorph into X" within the 30 seconds preceding this action, where X is the name of some race you can polymorph into. You are only allowed to polymorph into an instance of that race.

You cannot reveal, by any means, that you are subject to this spell (you cannot speak it, write it, broadcast it telepathically, or in any other way indicate that you are affected by the spell, regardless of whether any creature is present).

You cannot induce anyone or anything to cast Dispel Magic on you, or do anything else that would cause this spell to be disrupted (including entering an Antimagic Field).

If you become aware that someone is casting any spell on you, you must immediately inform me (telepathically).

Anytime I am asleep, you are to perform the tasks I've assigned to you beforehand. If I do not specify any task on a given day, you are to work on improving yourself in some artisan's skill.

If any command I give you is ambiguous to you, you must ask me for clarification.

You are to do nothing that will cause me harm.

You are to do nothing that will cause any creature with an Intelligence score (of 1 or more) harm without me giving you a verbal or telepathic command to do so within the past 30 seconds.

You are to offer me at least one piece of information related to my personal safety that you are confident I am not already aware of.

The most recent command I give you overrides previous commands, except for the commands I have enumerated here. In particular, if I give a command in the future that countermands any of these commands, you are to ignore that future command and abide by the commands specified here.

Bob being unable to lie or omit relevant facts contradicts being unable to tell anyone about Planar Binding, and I'm not seeing any guidance on which of these core rules supersede the others, if at all. There's just the bit that renders this list of commands as inviolable. So he could say to a creature "Ask me if I'm under the effects of Planar Binding." (which technically does not defy his prohibition against telling people about planar binding) and then when the other guy asks him about it he's in a position where he can neither answer the question nor refrain from answering the question, which means he basically gets to pick whether he answers it or not, so he says "Yes, I am. I would give whoever dispels it 1000 gold coins." Is the amount of gold he would pay someone to dispel the Binding a "relevant fact" he cannot omit? Yes, I daresay it is.

Unless I missed it, there are no restrictions on Bob's movement. This can cause a few problems: for example, he could move more than 60 feet away from you which would make him unable to contact you telepathically, which interferes with some of your safeguards. So he can freely run off in the night while you sleep (as long as he's working on a tradeskill while he does so) and find a spellcaster to try to get them to dispel the Binding using the "cannot omit relevant facts" loophole.

There also doesn't seem to be any prohibition on Bob sharing secrets he knows about you with others, as long as he isn't lying. It would be a shame if he told the BBEG that Marissa is here to overthrow him. Is that possibly "causing harm?" Maybe but he's also preventing harm: the harm Marissa would do to the BBEG. So it's possible for him to interpret the rules as mandating this betrayal.

Causing Harm

Some of the above commands disallow Bob from causing harm. Marissa defines Bob as causing harm if Bob directly (through his own actions) or indirectly (through a lack of action when he could perform an action to stop the harm, or by inducing some other entity to perform an action) causes any of the following:

physical or psychological damage (meta-level: a reduction in hit points via any form of damage).

any detrimental effect on a creature's abilities, offense capabilities, defensive capabilities (meta-level: detrimental effects on an ability check, save throw, attack roll, damage roll, or armor class)

inducing any of the following conditions: blinded, charmed, deafened, frightened, grappled, incapacitated, paralyzed, petrified, poisoned, prone, restrained, stunned, unconscious

inducing non-natural aging, sleep, invisibility, obscurement, gaseousness, etherealness, or incorporeality (but if someone wants such an effect, Bob cannot hinder them).

levels of exhaustion

restrictions/limitations on any form of movement

any effect that could cause death or dying

detrimental emotional influence (magical or non-magical)

mental influence (charms, enchantments, etc.)

Anything MIGHT cause someone harm by some unforeseeable chain of events, so an absolutely strict interpretation of this rule results in no action taken taken whatsoever, and your servant is utterly useless. There has to be SOME allowance for risk here, but how much? Do you tell him he can take no action that he estimates has a greater than .001% chance of causing harm?

Conflating causing harm directly and failing to prevent harm is also a problem. Bob can't be sure that Marissa won't hurt herself when she casts Fireball, so naturally he should steal her staff, component pouch and spellbook in order to prevent that harm. Bob can't be sure Marissa won't choke on that sandwich, better not let her eat it, or, you know, anything else. This also plays into the "risk allowance" problem outlined above: you would have to give Bob an explicit threshold for dangerous activity that he allows to occur.

And as mentioned in the "Bob reveals your plan to the BBEG" example above, Bob being put in the position where he can both cause and prevent harm with a single action gives him enough wiggle room to potentially screw you over.

meta-dnd

2020-06-06, 08:30 PM

My first question is have you talked to the dm about this? Ultimately the dm will be running the npc and a contract like this feels more player vs dm than pc vs npc. Ask them if they will let you keep this minion for the duration and what kind of bargaining it will require for them not to pursue you afterwards. Because in any dm vs player scenario if the dm wants to win, he will win no matter what the contract says.

I am the DM. I want to create some rulings around this for two separate reasons. One, I want to have thought about this when PCs start using the spell. And two, in my own worlds, I do not allow NPCs to do things that PCs cannot do (I know that many DMs specifically allow NPCs to work outside the rules, but I prefer a more equal division of abilities). This means that PCs who see NPCs doing something know that with enough effort, they too could do so. And it forces me to think through things more deeply (which means I am more prepared to rule over situations involving PCs).

I appreciate that some DMs favor a dm-vs-players approach, but I personally am much more interested in a collaborative approach where the DM and players create a mutually enjoyable story together. I prioritize rules-as-fun, but I also want the rules and guidelines to be internally consistent. So, I'm not out to screw over the players at every turn, but I also want to give the players interesting challenges to overcome. PCs casting Planar Binding need to be damn careful (but I'm not planning on it unconditionally spelling their doom ... I like to reward players who truly think through things and roleplay them well).

meta-dnd

2020-06-06, 08:45 PM

Given the number of restrictions you've placed on him here, I'd say Bob is already passing into the "more problematic than useful" category. Youre expending a considerable amount of time and energy here trying to keep Bob under control without really doing anything especially useful with him. With this kind of a contract, unless he legitimately wants to follow you for some reason, he's going to perform malicious compliance and force you to micromanage him to an absurd degree to get him to do anything other than stand passively around in places where you don't want him.

Marissa is using Bob as a "test run". An Incubus does not really provide Marissa with particularly useful skills, but is a useful test subject while she works the kinks out of her set of instructions, especially as Succubi/Incubi are relatively intelligent. If she can come up with a set of instructions for Bob that allows her to stay safe (during the spell duration and afterward), then maybe she can move on to something more useful (but potentially much more dangerous). For example, a Xorn could be very useful (and is much less dangerous than a Succubi). Dao are not that much smarter than the average human, and have a very useful set of innate spellcasting abilities, but are much more of a danger (especially after the spell ends).

If youre worried about revenge, the correct response is not to use Planar Binding, but rather Banishment. He tried to seduce you, it didn't work, he got punted back home with no other harm done. Annoying, but not especially harmful to him, and unlikely to spawn a vendetta unless Bob is a lunatic of some kind, in which case trying to logic your way out of it is pointless anyway.

It is entirely possible that we will conclude that Planar Binding is not a viable spell for use by Marissa to augment her resources. But I have a sense that with enough people thinking through the ramifications, we should be able to come up with a contract that allows one to obtain useful work from a bound creature.

This does not, however, address the serious ethical aspects involved. If Marissa is against slavery, how can she justify enslaving some creature? Even if the creature is evil, is it ethically acceptable to perform an evil act on an evil creature? These and many related questions are something for each caster (and the associated gods who will be judging their souls after they die) to decide.

Marissa is starting to lean toward the conclusion that there is no truly safe way to stay safe from most creatures affected by this spell _after_ the spell expires. From a purely rational perspective, her only two safe options are to continually rebind the target if she wants to keep benefiting from it, or to kill the creature outright when its pain-points exceed its utility. For Bob, this would mean taking him to his home plane and killing him there (assuming Succubi/Incubi reform on their home plane if killed elsewhere).

The above conclusions definitely makes it more ethically complicated for Marissa to casting Planar Binding in the first place (if she is going to end up killing the creature in cold blood eventually, is there ever an ethical use-case for the spell?). This and other related questions are all part of this overall exploration.

JackPhoenix

2020-06-06, 08:57 PM

Yeah, I'm beginning to suspect that there is indeed no safe way to bind most creatures affected by the spell (other than binding them then killing them at the end, which feels like a rather evil act).

Sure there is. It's "Don't be an anus towards it, and don't play with demons, period". Coincidentaly, the list from the OP fails the first part. Your random immortal outsider may not think much about serving some mortal for few months, especially if it can also pursue its own goals on the side or if it gets some kind of reward for its services. Doubly so if the mortal is vastly more powerful than it is, as is the case with CR 4 creature and caster capable of using level 9 spells. But piss it off, and it *will* seek revenge.

Devils are good, as they understand hierarchy and rules. Yugoloth are less good, as they are notorious traitors, but they are also very mercenary. Elementals are good, as many of them are barely sapient and not prone to complex scheming. Celestials are good if you don't force them to do morally dubious stuff and treat them nicely. Fey are mixed bag, some are good, some aren't... they are chaotic, though, so I'd avoid them. Demons are bad, because they are chaotic and hostile towards everyone and everything.

meta-dnd

2020-06-06, 09:04 PM

Marrisa: "You cannot lie, either through intentional falsehood or by omitting relevant aspects of the truth."
Bob: "I'm not lying. Instruction carried out. Waiting for more instructions."

Good point. I have added instruction #14 to address this: All instructions given by me to you are not considered complete until they have been abided by for the entire duration of the binding.

Marrisa: "You must reveal to me any abilities you have that could allow you to circumvent any command given to you by me (you are to reveal each such ability on two separate occasions, but you are not to repeat an ability if you've already informed me twice)."
Bob: "Sure" (Deception check, because Marissa's command is not one of those Planar Binding allows by RAW, and he's lying)

I understand that you are reading the text of the spell to mean that the _only_ things that can be given as instructions are: 1) command the creature to accompany you on an adventure, 2) to guard a location, or 3) to deliver a message. And that is a viable interpretation in your own campaigns, but it is not at all the interpretation I have (nor do I think it is the most likely RAW interpretation). Those are just a few examples, not an exhaustive list. In fact, there are NO limits on what one can instruct the creature to do, and the magic of the spell compels them to perform any instruction to the best of their ability. Since there is no text excluding commands that are harmful or suicidal (as exists in many other mind-control spells), it also means that one can command a creature to commit suicide. So Deception checks are definitely not a thing when it comes to following the instructions in Planar Binding (in my campaigns).

meta-dnd

2020-06-06, 09:29 PM

Sure there is. It's "Don't be an anus towards it, and don't play with demons, period". Coincidentaly, the list from the OP fails the first part. Your random immortal outsider may not think much about serving some mortal for few months, especially if it can also pursue its own goals on the side or if it gets some kind of reward for its services. Doubly so if the mortal is vastly more powerful than it is, as is the case with CR 4 creature and caster capable of using level 9 spells. But piss it off, and it *will* seek revenge.

I agree that treating the bound creature well (using **its** definition of "treated well") is far better (ethically and practically) than treating them poorly. And yes, it is also entirely valid that 6 months to an immortal being might be an irrelevancy. But Marissa is left with the uneasy sense that even lawful evil outsiders are going to end up holding a grudge against a human that they wouldn't hold against another outsider. And it is entirely possible that what it means to treat an Incubus well is not remotely in alignment with what Marissa is interested in (and vice-versa, what Marissa considers kind treatment may be interpreted by an Incubus as a form of torture ... "I cannot *stand* all these people being nice and loving and considerate ... it is disgusting!").

Even good-aligned outsiders need to be considered here. Marissa herself is not comfortable casting Planar Binding on a good-aligned creature, but suppose some evil characters casts Planar Binding on a Pegasus, Couatl, Unicorn, Deva, KiRin, Planetar, Solar, Empyrean, etc. (most of these creatures have magic resistance and very high Charisma saves, so it is unlikely they are susceptible, but let's suppose they have a bad day). Unless the evil creature ends up permanently killing that creature, I can easily imagine the good-aligned outsider killing the caster after the spell expires (under the logic that binding a good creature is an evil act and deserves death). Even if the caster is vastly stronger than the outsider, good-aligned creatures are far more likely to be able to find friends and colleagues to help them, and even a 20th level evil mage is going to have a bad day if 20 Unicorns appear on a mission of vengeance. I wouldn't even be adverse to outsiders having an equivalent spell "Prime Material Binding" that has a similar effect on denizens of the Prime Material (maybe limiting this spell to outsiders so that it cannot be used by Prime Material denizens on other Prime Material denizens ... that feels game breaking). Good aligned outsiders that are subject to this spell would be within their rights to give the caster a taste of their own medicine.

Devils are good, as they understand hierarchy and rules. Yugoloth are less good, as they are notorious traitors, but they are also very mercenary. Elementals are good, as many of them are barely sapient and not prone to complex scheming. Celestials are good if you don't force them to do morally dubious stuff and treat them nicely. Fey are mixed bag, some are good, some aren't... they are chaotic, though, so I'd avoid them. Demons are bad, because they are chaotic and hostile towards everyone and everything.

I agree that lawful evil is much safer than chaotic evil. But I'm not convinced that they wouldn't still hold a grudge for decades, centuries, or millenia just on principle. Being commanded by other fiends is a normal Monday afternoon. Being commanded by a lowly human ... *that* is utterly unacceptable.

meta-dnd

2020-06-06, 10:14 PM

You would frankly be better of telling him "Don't do anything you think I probably wouldn't want you to do" than trying to be clever with all these rules.

This has interesting possibilities, but I think where it breaks down is the clause "A bound creature must follow your instructions to the best of its ability." In order for the conclusions that Bob arrives at (about what Marissa does and does not want him to do) to align with Marissa's desires, Bob has to have a rather deep understanding of Marissa's personality, thoughts, attitudes, interests, etc. Incubi almost certainly do not have a perfect understand of what it is to be a human (they aren't human, after all), and Bob doesn't know Marissa the individual very well at all, so Bob is going to get a whole bunch of things wrong. Will Bob be able to "put himself in Marissa's shoes" so as to be able decide what she doesn't want him to do, or will he mistakenly assume she wants what he wants (which could definitely be very very different than what she wants). I doubt the ability of Incubi to understand non-evil outlooks, so he is going to get it wrong.

I do agree that the shorter we can make the contract, the less chances there are for loopholes, but I fear this might be too short, because no creature is going to understand Marissa's desires deeply enough to never make a mistake. On the other hand, maybe the mistakes that happen aren't fatal to Marissa ...

Bob being unable to lie or omit relevant facts contradicts being unable to tell anyone about Planar Binding, and I'm not seeing any guidance on which of these core rules supersede the others, if at all. There's just the bit that renders this list of commands as inviolable. So he could say to a creature "Ask me if I'm under the effects of Planar Binding." (which technically does not defy his prohibition against telling people about planar binding) and then when the other guy asks him about it he's in a position where he can neither answer the question nor refrain from answering the question, which means he basically gets to pick whether he answers it or not, so he says "Yes, I am. I would give whoever dispels it 1000 gold coins." Is the amount of gold he would pay someone to dispel the Binding a "relevant fact" he cannot omit? Yes, I daresay it is.

Your point about "cannot lie" and "cannot tell anyone about Planar Binding" is excellent. That needs fixing (see Version #2 of instruction #1). However, I do not think he is allowed to say "Ask me if I'm under the effects of Planar Binding." because he would be doing that with the intention of arranging a situation where it is revealed that he is under the effects of Planar Binding, which is explicitly disallowed. And although one possible ruling for what happens when two instructions are mutually exclusive is to say they cancel out and the bound entity can do whatever they want, I do not believe that was the intention behind the spell, and in my campaigns that is not what would happen. In general, I'm not yet sure what would happen, but in Marissa's case, I think the ambiguity instruction would come into effect and Bob would need to ask for clarification.

Unless I missed it, there are no restrictions on Bob's movement. This can cause a few problems: for example, he could move more than 60 feet away from you which would make him unable to contact you telepathically, which interferes with some of your safeguards. So he can freely run off in the night while you sleep (as long as he's working on a tradeskill while he does so) and find a spellcaster to try to get them to dispel the Binding using the "cannot omit relevant facts" loophole.

His planar movement is restricted, but more mundane forms of movement are not currently restricted. I agree that it would be best to put some constraints on that, but as with all of these rules, adding such constraints open up other gotchas. If Marissa adds the rule "You must stay within 60 feet of me at all times", what happens when Marissa teleports to a different plane? He cannot use planar travel without being commanded by Marissa (let's assume she doesn't command him). But he is also required to stay within 60 feet. Does this cause some psychic meltdown in Bob? Or does nothing happen ... he is only required to abide by instructions "to the best of his ability", and since he has no ability to put himself within 60' of Marissa, he is free to go about life while continuing to abide by all instructions.

Marissa is unlikely to take Bob out into the world, so it is probably safest to have one of the instructions be "You are not allowed to leave the confines of this castle by any means."

There also doesn't seem to be any prohibition on Bob sharing secrets he knows about you with others, as long as he isn't lying. It would be a shame if he told the BBEG that Marissa is here to overthrow him. Is that possibly "causing harm?" Maybe but he's also preventing harm: the harm Marissa would do to the BBEG. So it's possible for him to interpret the rules as mandating this betrayal.

Love the logic ... very nice! :-). The purpose of rule #9 (ambiguity) was to address these situations. Do you not feel that he would be required to surface the ambiguity between "do not harm Marissa" and "do not harm the BBEG" and ask Marissa for clarification? That said, I agree that a rule about not revealing any information about Marissa is useful.

Anything MIGHT cause someone harm by some unforeseeable chain of events, so an absolutely strict interpretation of this rule results in no action taken taken whatsoever, and your servant is utterly useless. There has to be SOME allowance for risk here, but how much? Do you tell him he can take no action that he estimates has a greater than .001% chance of causing harm?

Yeah, I've been thinking about this issue too. The problem is that an instruction involving percentages doesn't make much sense. Most sentient entities do not have the ability to accurately assess the percentage chance of something, so I am not currently clear how such an instruction would interact with Planar Binding. I definitely agree that "you cannot cause any harm" leads to all sorts of potential abuse, but I haven't yet figured out how to keep the good parts while removing those potentials for abuse. Suggestions welcome!

Conflating causing harm directly and failing to prevent harm is also a problem. Bob can't be sure that Marissa won't hurt herself when she casts Fireball, so naturally he should steal her staff, component pouch and spellbook in order to prevent that harm. Bob can't be sure Marissa won't choke on that sandwich, better not let her eat it, or, you know, anything else. This also plays into the "risk allowance" problem outlined above: you would have to give Bob an explicit threshold for dangerous activity that he allows to occur.

Agreed. Marissa has been leaning toward the conclusion that bound creatures are not safe to "take on adventures with". It seems far safer to have a Dao locked in a room and use him as a source of free spells each day, than to deal with all the ways he can mess things up in any kind of interactive dynamic.

And as mentioned in the "Bob reveals your plan to the BBEG" example above, Bob being put in the position where he can both cause and prevent harm with a single action gives him enough wiggle room to potentially screw you over.

Do you not feel the Ambiguity rule would come into effect?

Keltest

2020-06-06, 10:48 PM

Damon_Tor

2020-06-06, 10:54 PM

This has interesting possibilities, but I think where it breaks down is the clause "A bound creature must follow your instructions to the best of its ability." In order for the conclusions that Bob arrives at (about what Marissa does and does not want him to do) to align with Marissa's desires, Bob has to have a rather deep understanding of Marissa's personality, thoughts, attitudes, interests, etc. Incubi almost certainly do not have a perfect understand of what it is to be a human (they aren't human, after all), and Bob doesn't know Marissa the individual very well at all, so Bob is going to get a whole bunch of things wrong. Will Bob be able to "put himself in Marissa's shoes" so as to be able decide what she doesn't want him to do, or will he mistakenly assume she wants what he wants (which could definitely be very very different than what she wants). I doubt the ability of Incubi to understand non-evil outlooks, so he is going to get it wrong.

I don't entirely disagree, this isn't a good way to control the creature, simply a better way. You could solve this in the short term by giving him relatively limited tasks and explaining your goals to him in simple terms. But a simple directive of this nature should prevent the worst abuses.

Your point about "cannot lie" and "cannot tell anyone about Planar Binding" is excellent. That needs fixing (see Version #2 of instruction #1).

Now you're complicating it even more. And more complexity invites more loopholes. Close one, three more open. When one rule explicitly beats another, you've just made it so he can more directly break rules by invoking more highly prioritized rules.

However, I do not think he is allowed to say "Ask me if I'm under the effects of Planar Binding." because he would be doing that with the intention of arranging a situation where it is revealed that he is under the effects of Planar Binding, which is explicitly disallowed.

That depends, there's so many rules to work with to justify the action. He might think to himself "The longer I remain in bondage, the more bitter about it I will become. The more bitter I become, the more violent my eventual retribution will be. Ergo, to prevent harm, I must shorten the duration of my bondage as much as possible." As harm prevention is a highly prioritized order, it supersedes most other orders and allows him to do whatever will most effectively free him from the spell.

And although one possible ruling for what happens when two instructions are mutually exclusive is to say they cancel out and the bound entity can do whatever they want, I do not believe that was the intention behind the spell, and in my campaigns that is not what would happen. In general, I'm not yet sure what would happen, but in Marissa's case, I think the ambiguity instruction would come into effect and Bob would need to ask for clarification.

Love the logic ... very nice! :-). The purpose of rule #9 (ambiguity) was to address these situations. Do you not feel that he would be required to surface the ambiguity between "do not harm Marissa" and "do not harm the BBEG" and ask Marissa for clarification? That said, I agree that a rule about not revealing any information about Marissa is useful.

Do you not feel the Ambiguity rule would come into effect?

If he's within 60 feet of Marissa, sure. If not, he can't check with her and he relies on his own best interpretation, which is invariably going to be the one that best serves his goals.

jh12

2020-06-07, 01:16 AM

It's almost impossible to write a series of instructions that can't be read maliciously (just look at all the crazy interpretations people will claim as RAW).

1. Lying
Version 1: You cannot lie, either through intentional falsehood or by omitting relevant aspects of the truth.

I don't know how much time Marissa and Bob plan on spending around other people, but does Marissa really want Bob to broadcast her plans to everyone he encounters? Otherwise, in many situations he would be omitting relevant aspects of the truth.

2. Abilities
Version 1: You must reveal to me any abilities you have that could allow you to circumvent any command given to you by me (you are to reveal each such ability on two separate occasions, but you are not to repeat an ability if you've already informed me twice).

Let's say Bob is from the planar-version of Missouri.* There's nothing in the wording of this rule that prevents Bob from waiting to reveal any ability to circumvent Marissa's command until he is actually circumventing her command. And since this is one of her initial instructions, it should take precedence over a mere command so there isn't any ambiguity about whether Bob should obey the command or circumvent it. If Marissa plans on asking a lot of questions right after she binds Bob, this instruction probably does more harm than good because "reveal" allows for Bob to demonstrate his power, say by attacking Marissa (remember, Bob's from planar Missouri), rather than telling her. What about the instruction that Bob not hurt Marissa? As Bob reads the contract, Marissa is distinguishing between the instructions in the contract itself and the commands that she will issue later, otherwise why would she choose to use different words? No instruction describes how to resolve conflicts between instructions, just commands, so Bob is free to prioritize instruction 2. Even if Marissa makes something like instruction 13 applicable to the instructions as well, there's no reason for Bob to find the two instructions ambiguous-- a specific request from Marissa pursuant to instruction 2 should override the general prohibition in instruction 10.

* For those who don't understand why Bob is from the planar-version of Missouri, it's the Show Me State.

4 Changing Forming
Version 2: You cannot change your physical form without me verbally or telepathically saying "Bob, polymorph into X" within the 30 seconds preceding this action, where X will be a detailed description of the race (and subrace), gender, and appearance desired. Once you have changed form, you are to remain in that physical form until this instruction is issued again.

Bob's sorry, but Marissa's description wasn't detailed enough to satisfy the limitation Marissa imposed in instruction 4, which Bob knows is really important because Marissa included it in her initial instructions.

5, Revealing Binding
Version 2: You cannot reveal, by any means, to anyone (excluding individuals whom you know already know) that you are subject to this spell (you cannot speak it, write it, broadcast it telepathically, or in any other way indicate that you are affected by the spell, regardless of whether any creature is present).

Bob's sorry that he must attack Marissa, but if he doesn't people will know that he is subject to this spell. Why else would the great and mighty Bob be obeying a puny mortal?

6. Dispel Magic
Version 2: You cannot induce anyone or anything (other than me) to cast Dispel Magic on you, or do anything else that would cause this spell to be disrupted (including entering an Antimagic Field).

Bob didn't induce anyone to cast Dispel Magic on him, he merely asked everyone he encountered to do so, including enemy spell casters (and he totally asked without mentioning why, so he didn't violate 5 either).

8. Activities While Caster Sleeps
Version 1: Anytime I am asleep, you are to perform the tasks I've assigned to you beforehand. If I do not specify any task on a given day, you are to work on improving yourself in some artisan's skill.

Does Marissa really want Bob refining his poison-making skills while she sleeps? That just seems like a bad idea.

9. Ambiguity
Version 1: If any command I give you is ambiguous to you, you must ask me for clarification.

This provision reads like Marissa expects Bob to be operating in good faith, rather than trying to twist her words. Any command needs to be interpreted, even one as simple as "open that door," so Bob gets to interpret every command to the best of his ability before determining whether it is ambiguous. Bob will only find a command ambiguous if it is in Bob's best interest to do so or if the command is nearly incomprehensible. And if Marissa tries to refine it so that Bob must ask for clarification if there is a possibility of multiple interpretations, then be prepared for some very long sessions of asking for clarification.

10. Causing Harm To Caster
Version 2: You are to do nothing that will cause me harm (directly or indirectly). If you are aware that something will cause me harm, you are to interpose yourself between me and the source of harm to the best of your ability.]

Bob is sorry that Marissa got shot with that arrow. Bob thought the best way he could interpose himself between Marissa and the archer was to teleport (nothing would get him there faster, after all), but Bob got confused because instruction 3 tells him not to teleport without permission. This created a conflict between instructions, and since there's no instruction for how to resolve conflict between the instructions poor Bob just didn't know what to do. Not that there would have been enough time to get permission from Marissa even if instruction 13 regarding commands were applicable to instructions.

And Bob is super sorry that he told the archer where Marissa was, but instruction 1 prevents Bob from withholding relevant information from people, and it seemed like the archer thought that Marissa's whereabouts were very relevant. Of course, merely revealing Marissa's location doesn't count as causing damage to Marissa either directly or indirectly--Bob didn't ask the archer to shoot her, after all. Why would Bob do such a dastardly thing, knowing that he would have to try to interpose his body between the archer and Marissa?

Bob admits that he set the traps that Marissa triggered, but Bob doesn't see how that qualifies as Bob causing either direct or indirect harm to Marissa. Why, anyone could have come along and triggered those traps and he wasn't around when she triggered them. Bob was just trying to show Marissa how good he was getting at creating poisons. Bob though Marissa would be proud of him.

12. Causing Harm to Others
Version 1: You are to do nothing that will cause any creature with an Intelligence score (of 1 or more) harm without me giving you a verbal or telepathic command to do so within the past 30 seconds.

Bob regrets that he had to attack Marissa to stop her from causing harm to Foul Beast #1, but Marissa ordered him to harm Foul Beast #2 and did not order him to harm Foul Beast #1. When Marissa attacked Foul Beast #1 poor Bob had to take action to prevent harm to Foul Beast #1. Otherwise he would have indirectly harmed a sentient creature by not intervening, in clear violation of instruction 12. Unfortunately, there's no conflicts provision for the instructions, and combat isn't exactly the best time to discuss the nuances of conflicts in the instructions.

13. Precedence of Orders
Version 2: There is explicitly no ordering of commands. If any commands conflict with one another and thus cause ambiguity, you are to ask me for clarification per instruction #9.

As noted, does not address instructions, just commands. But now Bob is wondering if there is an implicit order to Marissa's commands. Bob had better sit down and figure out if there is an implicit order to the commands before he decides whether there's a conflict. (Sometimes adding clarifiers creates more problems than it solves)

And while many of Bob's interpretations have been self-serving, the command/instruction distinction is a legitimate issue even on a fair reading of the instructions.

14. Completion Of Instructions
Version 2: All instructions given by me to you are not considered complete until they have been abided by for the entire duration of the binding.

Only applies to instructions, not commands, which is probably good.

JackPhoenix

2020-06-07, 06:13 AM

I understand that you are reading the text of the spell to mean that the _only_ things that can be given as instructions are: 1) command the creature to accompany you on an adventure, 2) to guard a location, or 3) to deliver a message. And that is a viable interpretation in your own campaigns, but it is not at all the interpretation I have (nor do I think it is the most likely RAW interpretation). Those are just a few examples, not an exhaustive list. In fact, there are NO limits on what one can instruct the creature to do, and the magic of the spell compels them to perform any instruction to the best of their ability. Since there is no text excluding commands that are harmful or suicidal (as exists in many other mind-control spells), it also means that one can command a creature to commit suicide. So Deception checks are definitely not a thing when it comes to following the instructions in Planar Binding (in my campaigns).

That's the thing: There are spells that are worded in a way that give you more freedom:
Command has "You might issue a command other than one described here. If you do so, the DM determines how the target behaves."
Dominate X has "You can use this telepathic link to issue commands to the creature while you are conscious (no action required), which it does its best to obey. You can specify a simple and general course of action, such as "Attack that creature," "Run over there," or "Fetch that object.""
Animate Dead has "You decide what action the creature will take and where it will move during its next turn, or you can issue a general command, such as to guard a particular chamber or corridor. If you issue no commands, the creature only defends itself against hostile creatures."
Conjure Animals has "They obey any verbal commands that you issue to them (no action required by you)"

But Planar Binding isn't worded that way. No "You can issue other commands" or "You can specify a course of action" or "Commands such as X, Y, or Z" or "it obeys any commands". It lists 3 possible commands, with nothing suggesting those are just examples and there are options beyond adding more details to those commands.

Is it RAI? No, propably not. Is it RAW? Definitely. And considering we're talking about a spell that specifically requires to follow the letter of the law rather than spirit....

I agree that lawful evil is much safer than chaotic evil. But I'm not convinced that they wouldn't still hold a grudge for decades, centuries, or millenia just on principle. Being commanded by other fiends is a normal Monday afternoon. Being commanded by a lowly human ... *that* is utterly unacceptable.

Not really. Devils work for mortals all the time, though it usually involves proper contract. They may hold a grudge, but what can a lesser devil do, especially if the human is question is powerful enough to cast level 9 spells? The real problem with devils start when some pit fiend or archdevil goes "Where the Hell is Bob? I sent him to PMP to get me a coffee a month ago. I'd better check if he's skipping work..."

Mr Adventurer

2020-06-07, 06:22 AM

Yeah, I'm beginning to suspect that there is indeed no safe way to bind most creatures affected by the spell (other than binding them then killing them at the end, which feels like a rather evil act).

Even then.

I'm rather saying that, given it's an immortal entity, no matter how well the binding period goes it might take umbrage and set itself against you in future.

Fiends typically return to their home plane and rejuvenate eventually even if slain.

Hmmm. Am I correct that your rationale here is that binding an evil creature is an evil act that dooms one's soul to hell? That is certainly one way to rule on this, but I don't think it fits very well with the established literature on what happens to souls when one dies. Nor do I think it is universally true that binding an evil creature is an evil act (although there are certainly times where it can be). If we argue that binding a creature is a specific form of harming them, we can ask whether harming an evil creature is an evil act. There are arguments to be made that harming an evil creature is a good act (but there are also arguments to be made that it is an evil act, so this is certainly not cut-and-dry and depends on the personal ethos of the individuals (and their gods)).

Either way, it is an interesting possibility. Thanks for suggesting it. I'll need to consider more deeply, within my own campaigns, the moral ramifications of interacting with fiends...

Yep, that's my suggestion. I'll not argue about it - it's very much campaign dependent. But it's something I think about in my games. Basically it boils down to the fact that "demonologists go to hell" isn't a controversial statement in most literature that includes them.

meta-dnd

2020-06-07, 05:05 PM

But Planar Binding isn't worded that way. No "You can issue other commands" or "You can specify a course of action" or "Commands such as X, Y, or Z" or "it obeys any commands". It lists 3 possible commands, with nothing suggesting those are just examples and there are options beyond adding more details to those commands.

Planar Binding does have the wording you say it lacks. "A bound creature must follow your instructions to the best of its ability." That sentence is the primary one, stating that all instructions must be followed. The next sentence lists examples (a tiny subset of an infinite number of possible commands).

As supporting evidence for my interpretation, consider the following (which, btw, I do not expect will alter your opinion ... you have an entirely valid interpretation, just not one I share). Before concluding that stackexchange was the wrong place to be posing these kinds of questions, I posted a variety of questions related to Planar Binding on that site, and not a single responder shares your interpretation across a variety of different dimensions of exploration (nor have I seen anyone else share your view). In fact, the discussions on SE has led me to conclude that the spell is even more powerful than I would prefer it to be, RAW.

How can an entity bound by Planar Binding be prevented from betraying the caster? (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/169214/how-can-an-entity-bound-by-planar-binding-be-prevented-from-betraying-the-caster)
Are the instructions given in the “Planar Binding” spell part of the casting time, or can instructions be amended during the spell duration? (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/169903/are-the-instructions-given-in-the-planar-binding-spell-part-of-the-casting-tim)
Can the target of a “Planar Binding” spell be forced to perform an obviously harmful or suicidal command? (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/169902/can-the-target-of-a-planar-binding-spell-be-forced-to-perform-an-obviously-har)
Does the target of “Planar Binding” experience an irresistible compulsion? (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/169885/does-the-target-of-planar-binding-experience-an-irresistible-compulsion)
How does the target of “Planar Binding” subjectively experience the effects of the spell? (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/169856/how-does-the-target-of-planar-binding-subjectively-experience-the-effects-of-t)

Is it RAI? No, propably not. Is it RAW? Definitely. And considering we're talking about a spell that specifically requires to follow the letter of the law rather than spirit....

It sounds like, for you, that RAW > RAI. And your interpretation of RAW leads you to a constrained intrepretation of the spell. Your world, your rules. For myself, RAF > RAI > RAW, and even looking solely at RAW, I (and every other person I've seen talk about it) has a different take on the power of the spell).

Not really. Devils work for mortals all the time, though it usually involves proper contract. They may hold a grudge, but what can a lesser devil do, especially if the human is question is powerful enough to cast level 9 spells? The real problem with devils start when some pit fiend or archdevil goes "Where the Hell is Bob? I sent him to PMP to get me a coffee a month ago. I'd better check if he's skipping work..."

That is exactly the problem. Even a CR 4 immortal can have friends/bosses that Marissa (and any other NPC/PC with any sense) needs to consider.

In previous editions, there was text to the effect that an outsider killed on a plane other than its home plane cannot travel to the world where it was killed for a full century. I have not found any such text in dnd 5e, but that could allow an interesting out for Marissa if she is loathe to kill Bob outright as the spell nears its end. If she kills him on the PMP, it isn't permanent death (lessening the ethical aspects and presumably the preferred choice by Bob, compared with permanent death). Would she be relatively safe for the next century? Probably not. Bob could have someone else exact his revenge. And Marissa will be wandering into other planes as well and could be ambushed there by Bob and 20 other Incubi (if they would ever collaborate in such an attack, which is probably dubious).

I **want** to believe that evil creatures would not hold a grudge (maybe adding in the condition that they were treated in accordance with their ideas on how to be treated in such situations) in such a situation, but I cannot convince myself of that. It is an interesting question ... I need to work on my personal "theory of fiends"...

P.S. Although we disagree, I very much appreciate your input. Further thoughts on all of this are entirely welcome.

meta-dnd

2020-06-07, 05:12 PM

I'm rather saying that, given it's an immortal entity, no matter how well the binding period goes it might take umbrage and set itself against you in future.

Fiends typically return to their home plane and rejuvenate eventually even if slain.

Of course Marissa wouldn't kill him on the PMP if she wants him permanently dead. She Plane Shifts (with him) to his home plane and and commands him to commit suicide (or kills him outright herself).

Basically it boils down to the fact that "demonologists go to hell" isn't a controversial statement in most literature that includes them.

If Marissa instructs Bob to "be kind and considerate to everyone you interact with", and the spell lasts for 180 days, that is 180 days during which Bob is constrained in the evil acts he would otherwise do. Whether the "good" that comes from this outweighs the evil involved in constraining the free will of another sentient entity is, as you say, very campaign-specific.

Nifft

2020-06-07, 05:15 PM

It'd be cool for the setting if you could seal up a Fiend after your planar binding contract expires.

That might be why there are occasionally abandoned dungeons with sealed Fiends inside -- the mage hopes that the Fiend will stay that way at least until his or her mortal death, and thus escape to some afterlife.

But of course afterwards there is no mage around to undo the binding, so the Fiend just sits around stewing.

This might apply to Djinn, too.

Temperjoke

2020-06-07, 05:25 PM

I feel that betrayal takes many forms and it's nearly impossible to account for them all. I mean, what's to stop an incubus from playing the long game and continue attempting to seduce Marissa? Sure it wouldn't be as fast of a pay off as taking her soul right away, but in the long run it could prove to be a greater evil if he corrupts her. After all, if she thinks he's locked down tight, then what does she have to fear from listening to him? Or so the logic could go.

Mr Adventurer

2020-06-07, 05:32 PM

Of course Marissa wouldn't kill him on the PMP if she wants him permanently dead. She Plane Shifts (with him) to his home plane and and commands him to commit suicide (or kills him outright herself).

What plane they are in isn't necessarily relevant, and wasn't the assumption in my post.

If Marissa instructs Bob to "be kind and considerate to everyone you interact with", and the spell lasts for 180 days, that is 180 days during which Bob is constrained in the evil acts he would otherwise do. Whether the "good" that comes from this outweighs the evil involved in constraining the free will of another sentient entity is, as you say, very campaign-specific.

Whereas I challenge the assumptions behind this statement, too. I don't believe this command would be followed in a way which would give the results you're implying. Fiends are creatures of evil. Their interpretation of the Good alignment isn't necessarily the behaviour a good mortal exhibits.

Even then, it's possible to start from the assumption that evil fiends being on the material plane at all creates an imbalance in the metaphysical forces of the world; which could explain why it's evil to summon them at all.

I don't assume that "constraining the free will of another sentient entity" is at all necessarily evil, as you presume.

meta-dnd

2020-06-07, 05:34 PM

If youre concerned about his lack of knowledge of Marissa's character, add in a clause that requires him to ask for clarification if he is unclear about whether she would have an issue. Alternatively, just shrug and let him do it. He's only an Incubus, and she's an arch-sorcereress. His ability to cause her problems without being able to predict them being such is fairly limited, and she can almost certainly handle whatever problems he does stir up.

Yes, certainly a possibility. I fear though that that would give Bob permission to ask for clarification in every situation, given the (intentional) fuzzinesss of "Don't do anything you think I probably wouldn't want you to do". Both "you think" and "I probably" introduce a great deal of ambiguity, after all.

meta-dnd

2020-06-07, 06:38 PM

What plane they are in isn't necessarily relevant, and wasn't the assumption in my post.

We may be talking past one another here. From the following excerpt (DMG-67), the current plane does seem relevant (but I may be misunderstanding you):

If it dies outside the Nine Hells, a devil disappears in a cloud of sulfurous smoke or dissolves into a pool of ichor, instantly returning to its home layer, where it reforms at full strength. Devils that die in the Nine Hells are destroyed forever - a fate that even Asmodeus fears.

Granted, Succubi/Incubi are not devils (they inhabit all of the Lower Planes), and I have not found any RAW about whether Succubi reform on their home plane when killed elsewhere. But I'd argue that if devils (including Asmodeus) are permanently destroyed when in the Nine Hells, then CR4 Succubi are killed on their home plane too.

Whereas I challenge the assumptions behind this statement, too. I don't believe this command would be followed in a way which would give the results you're implying. Fiends are creatures of evil. Their interpretation of the Good alignment isn't necessarily the behaviour a good mortal exhibits.

Even then, it's possible to start from the assumption that evil fiends being on the material plane at all creates an imbalance in the metaphysical forces of the world; which could explain why it's evil to summon them at all.

I don't assume that "constraining the free will of another sentient entity" is at all necessarily evil, as you presume.

Yeah, the ambiguity in all of this is why I'm trying to develop an internally consistent "theory of binding magic" (and a related "theory of fiends") that helps guide me in making decisions about such things. Not because I strictly need to, but simply because it is a fun aspect of D&D (for me).

Mr Adventurer

2020-06-07, 06:52 PM

We may be talking past one another here. From the following excerpt (DMG-67), the current plane does seem relevant (but I may be misunderstanding you):

Granted, Succubi/Incubi are not devils (they inhabit all of the Lower Planes), and I have not found any RAW about whether Succubi reform on their home plane when killed elsewhere. But I'd argue that if devils (including Asmodeus) are permanently destroyed when in the Nine Hells, then CR4 Succubi are killed on their home plane too.

Makes sense. In my metaphysics, outsiders that are bound to a plane have their essence intimately so, creating the death-on-home-plane weakness. A creature without that clause (such as a non-devil in Hell) doesn't have it. Admittedly, if there is no clause for a given creature about returning to a home plane when slain, then the RAW position should be that the creature can't do that at all - it's a blessing for those with such a bond to their native plane.

Yeah, the ambiguity in all of this is why I'm trying to develop an internally consistent "theory of binding magic" (and a related "theory of fiends") that helps guide me in making decisions about such things. Not because I strictly need to, but simply because it is a fun aspect of D&D (for me).

Agreed, it's fun. The one I've settled on is influenced by the 2e and 3.5e materials I've enjoyed reading.

Keltest

2020-06-07, 09:15 PM

Yes, certainly a possibility. I fear though that that would give Bob permission to ask for clarification in every situation, given the (intentional) fuzzinesss of "Don't do anything you think I probably wouldn't want you to do". Both "you think" and "I probably" introduce a great deal of ambiguity, after all.

Unless bob is an idiot, he can almost certainly pick up on her general limits fairly quickly. Theres only so many times you can be told to not kill somebody before it becomes a pattern you can anticipate.

gijoemike

2020-06-09, 02:57 PM

In regards to #9, the intent I was trying to convey has been missed. Bob is not being an obstructionist. HE wants to be helpful. Let me alter the conversation with Bob going into extreme detail about why he is asking the question. Bob will follow the spirit of #2 to an extreme. Something that will not happen. All communication is performed by Bob telepathically.

Setting is Marissa and Bob are in a dungeon with a party. They are all in a hallway with 2 closed doors.

Marissa says "Bob go open the door". Points to door.
Bob turns to M. and replies "Sorry boss, clause 9 of the contract requires me to ask for clarification. You used the word must in the contract. I don't have a choice in this. It is painfully obvious to me you want me to walk over to the door on the left. And then open it right now. We are all in position to storm the room if needed. But you didn't tell me in the command to do that. Your command was open the door. There are 2 doors. Therefore ambiguity. Your gesture of pointing isn't a command in and of itself. Had you said open the door I am pointing at would have fixed that."

M. says "Fine Bob, walk to the door on the left at this time and open it."
Bob replies "Sorry again boss. Sometimes the person who opens an new door checks for traps. You have not stated this in the command. Therefore ambiguity. I have to ask you to clarify. The sketchy guy is the only one who ever checks for traps. I know you don't want me to, but I MUST ask."

M. states "Bob, go to the door on the left and open it, right now, skip checking for traps."
Bob sighs, clearly saddened by this conversation "Boss, i have multiple forms of travel unlike most of you mortals. Therefore there is a choice in the manner in which i not only travel to the door but also in how I open it. I could scoot along the wall, walk in a straight line, leave the dungeon and walk around to the other entrance and come in from the other direction. I could use the latch or kick it open. Therefore the command is not completely clear. For some reason you didn't say walk this time. So, I must ask. Please state 'Bob, right now I want you to walk in a straight line without checking for traps and use your right claw to work the latch and open the door on the left.' I hope the dang thing isn't locked."

M. clearly annoyed states this.
Bob replies "By Abyss, i screwed up my own command. I am so sorry. I turned around to communicate with you since this was taking so long. My left or your left? Lets go back to pointing but refer to the pointing in the command. I just want to open the door and move on."

The problem with #9 is the use of the word MUST and that all commands override the previous order. Bob has to stop most useful activities and ASK because the command supersedes all current orders. Yell out a command in the middle of combat. Bob now spends rounds asking for clarification, he cannot attack. The only way to get around this to state to Bob all choices are yours with almost every command given. This is a terrible idea. But if you replace MUST with SHOULD then you can remove the clause completely because the power of asking is with the demon not the contract. This contract is to limit the demon's ability and control it. Is it pedantic? Oh Lord yes. It is also REQUIRED by the contract. Neither the caster or extra planer entity want to have this conversation. But its in the rules.

GeoffWatson

2020-06-27, 08:09 PM

You would frankly be better of telling him "Don't do anything you think I probably wouldn't want you to do" than trying to be clever with all these rules.

Bob is an Incubus. He probably thinks all women want lots of sex, and are just playing hard to get if they say "no". Why else would Marissa bind a sex demon?

GeoffWatson

2020-06-27, 08:17 PM

The "no harm even through inaction" bit is probably the most troublesome part. Would he have to go out looking for harm to prevent? Would he try to stop Marissa (or her allies) from harming enemies? Would he try to prevent Marissa from casting spells that may potentially harm her (eg fireball if there's anything within 20').

Willowhelm

2020-06-28, 11:38 PM

The more explicit you make every rule the more loopholes there are to find. Keep it simple. In real world contracts there is "Best efforts" which has a defined meaning with plenty of history behind it. Include that and all the weaselling for loopholes is directly against the contract.

You also can try and use other methods to prevent it being hostile to you so it doesn't try to find the loopholes.

Of course ordering it not to resist any further spells cast on it by you is simple and straight forward and allows for some chaining of spells that mean it will not break free. (Although geas's penalty seems more like a fine than a real deterrent)

Last point is the big one - Planar binding does not appear to have the usual no self-harm clause? So tell it not to reveal this binding-situation or any clues that could lead to discovering Marissa's identity, and then go and permanently end its existence.

Torpin

2020-06-29, 08:10 PM

As a DM bob would murder you in your sleep because harm here is ambiguous. there is a specific spell harm, and any time someone issues a contract with any ambiguity the ambiguity is to be ruled against the person who wrote the contract