Why don't Planar Bound Outsiders Cheat?

[blackwindbears]

I understand the behavior of planar binding right up until after the successful charisma check.


Casting this spell attempts a dangerous act: to lure a creature from another plane to a specifically prepared trap, which must lie within the spell’s range. The called creature is held in the trap until it agrees to perform one service in return for its freedom.

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

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

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

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

When you use a calling spell to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type.

What I don't understand is "you can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service". Suppose your service is, "go to market and buy me a loaf of bread".

I'm well aware that the outsider might subvert your instructions somehow, but what I don't understand is why the outsider even bothers trying. Once you release it from the summoning circle, if the reward you offered isn't good, why doesn't the outsider take your money, kill you, and then go spend it on a nice pair of shoes or something. The only answers I can think of are:

1) The outsider renders the service because the charisma check represented them agreeing to do it, and the outsider doesn't typically change their mind.

This sharply limits uses of the spell, and practically expects the DM to interpret "unreasonable demands" quite liberally. The word "compel" seems quite out of place in the spell description in that case.

2) There is an ongoing magical effect that compels the creature to behave.

The duration of planar binding is "instantaneous". No other spell I know of with instantaneous duration provides an ongoing compulsion. You might argue that only actually calling the creature is instantaneous and the compulsion is an ongoing effect, implying that the duration tag should actually read: instantaneous; see text. This would also have a bunch of implications, namely that an AMF would turn off the compulsion, a targeted dispel magic could remove or suppress the compulsion, or a disjunction could remove the binding.

Is there any material that gets detailed about how the ongoing compulsion occurs?

[noob]

Some people also make so that the demon go buy bread then the adventurer goes outside and see a demon army and everything is on fire.
The demon simply decided to go buy bread from other demons in exchange for souls and travel to this world.
By the way the bread was the best bread made from souls of innocent people: you will never find a bread that tastes better.

[icefractal]

The fact that they get sent back (without you or them casting another spell) when the task is completed strongly suggests that there is a continuing effect, and the fact that open-ended tasks have a duration limit (1 day/level) does as well.

I'd just treat it as a "durable" effect like Flesh to Stone or Mindr***. So it can't be dispelled or suppressed, but could be removed with Wish or Miracle.

[newguydude1]

planar binding is slavery
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?573043-Planar-Binding-is-SLAVERY

thats why.

[blackwindbears]

The fact that they get sent back (without you or them casting another spell) when the task is completed strongly suggests that there is a continuing effect, and the fact that open-ended tasks have a duration limit (1 day/level) does as well.

I'd just treat it as a "durable" effect like Flesh to Stone or Mindr***. So it can't be dispelled or suppressed, but could be removed with Wish or Miracle.

In both of those cases it seems clear that the effect could have been instantaneous. A fireball might turn you into ash, but it doesn't mean that it has an ongoing effect. It's substantially less clear to me in the case of an ongoing planar binding compulsion.



planar binding is slavery
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?573043-Planar-Binding-is-SLAVERY

thats why.

A) This doesn't answer the question. I want to know precisely how the "slavery" in this case is maintained.

B) {scrubbed}

[gogogome]

B) This whole thing reeks of a player on some weird power trip. I'm completely unsurprised that the original author was banned from this forum.

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

Yikes.

I've been on the forums for a few years now and I can definitely say there are a huge number of people who espouse that your "1)" interpretation of the spell is the one true RAW. So what's wrong about compiling a list of official examples that instantly and definitively prove these people wrong without having a 50 page debate about it?

If your having trouble understanding how an undispellable permanent Geas effect that cannot be thwarted by any means works then I suggest you check out the mindrape spell and see if that helps you understand how an instantaneous duration geas/quest with no spell descriptors would look like.

[Saint-Just]

A) This doesn't answer the question. I want to know precisely how the "slavery" in this case is maintained.

B) {scrub the post, scrub the quote}

This is the first time I have seen that thread (even though I have been reading this forum for years before registering) but this is pure ad hominem. Reasoning is either sound or not, regardless of presentation or motivation. Poster being banned have even less relation to something being true or not.

Desire to know rules in advance instead of playing DM-may-I is also not something unusual. RAW interpretation/discussion has not started as means to win times infinity (however quickly it may reached that threshold).

I have looked through that thread and while it doesn't provide precise mechanics of "how" it makes a really strong case for "what": according to rulebooks outsiders don't skedaddle after being released.

[blackwindbears]

I've been on the forums for a few years now and I can definitely say there are a huge number of people who espouse that your "1)" interpretation of the spell is the one true RAW. So what's wrong about compiling a list of official examples that instantly and definitively prove these people wrong without having a 50 page debate about it?

I'm pretty unhappy with the "#1" for the reasons I outlined, but the linked post seems quite consistent with it. The first ToM example suggests that what is being offered is freedom. The second ToM example is obvious nonsense that's been debated about on this board without very consistent resolution.

The MMIV example isn't inconsistent with "#1". The FCII example could just as easily be a devil that agreed to service and is looking forward to his earned rewards. He's greatly upset that he agreed but his lawfulness compels him to keep his word.

It looks like that page just created an extra fifty page debate, and is slightly orthogonal to the actual question I'm trying to answer. What precisely compels the ongoing obedience of the creature. A magical effect, an agreement they're happy to keep, or some third option?


If your having trouble understanding how an undispellable permanent Geas effect that cannot be thwarted by any means works then I suggest you check out the mindrape spell and see if that helps you understand how an instantaneous duration geas/quest with no spell descriptors would look like.

Is there an official 3.5 version for reference? I think it was in the spell compendium but can't recall its name. I'm also somewhat puzzled as Break Enchantment is specifically called out as removing it. Is that likely to be an oversight in the PB description in your view?

[blackwindbears]

This is the first time I have seen that thread (even though I have been reading this forum for years before registering) but this is pure ad hominem. Reasoning is either sound or not, regardless of presentation or motivation. Poster being banned have even less relation to something being true or not.

Desire to know rules in advance instead of playing DM-may-I is also not something unusual. RAW interpretation/discussion has not started as means to win times infinity (however quickly it may reached that threshold).

I have looked through that thread and while it doesn't provide precise mechanics of "how" it makes a really strong case for "what": according to rulebooks outsiders don't skedaddle after being released.

{scrubbed}. 😂 You're correct though that it has nothing to do with whether or not the argument is accurate!

The real problem, which you've helpfully noted is that the thread seems slightly orthogonal to my original question. It does argue "what" rather than "why" or "how", and it's the "why" and "how" that I'm after.

[tiercel]

I suppose to me, as with most things, if I’m DMing, I have (at least intelligent, capable) NPCs scheme and twist pretty much about as much as PCs do.

If PCs look to abuse what planar binding etc. can do, then (a) so will binding victims but also (b) most definitely so will BBEGs, who are after all usually higher in level than PCs and rarely more burdened by morals or ethics than PCs.

If there’s a question of what constitutes “abusive” at a given table, that’s partly what Spellcraft/Knowledge checks are for, but also, like, actually talking out what is reasonable for us as a group.

[Peelee]

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Re-opened.

[blackwindbears]

I suppose to me, as with most things, if I’m DMing, I have (at least intelligent, capable) NPCs scheme and twist pretty much about as much as PCs do.

If PCs look to abuse what planar binding etc. can do, then (a) so will binding victims but also (b) most definitely so will BBEGs, who are after all usually higher in level than PCs and rarely more burdened by morals or ethics than PCs.

If there’s a question of what constitutes “abusive” at a given table, that’s partly what Spellcraft/Knowledge checks are for, but also, like, actually talking out what is reasonable for us as a group.

Absolutely true. But aside from what counts as abusive I'm wondering if there is any 1st or 3rd party material that goes into detail about *what precisely* compels the fiend to the agreement. Their free choice or a Compulsion effect?

[gogogome]

To answer the first post
Instantaneous Duration = Super Permanent Duration.
Permanent Duration lasts forever, but Instantaneous Duration lasts forever AND can't be dispelled. Hence I coin the term "Super Permanent Duration".

The charisma check part of the planar binding is like the opposed charisma check of charm. Its just an additional way for the creature to defend themselves against the binding. And if he fails that then he is enslaved. In the Planar Binding is Slavery thread, crafting elemental items is a direct example of the charisma checking forcing a creature into enslavement.

So once the creature fails the charisma check, he essentially has a Super Permanent Duration geas/quest placed on him and that's why Planar Bound Outsiders don't cheat.

[blackwindbears]

To answer the first post
Instantaneous Duration = Super Permanent Duration.
Permanent Duration lasts forever, but Instantaneous Duration lasts forever AND can't be dispelled. Hence I coin the term "Super Permanent Duration".

The charisma check part of the planar binding is like the opposed charisma check of charm. Its just an additional way for the creature to defend themselves against the binding. And if he fails that then he is enslaved. In the Planar Binding is Slavery thread, crafting elemental items is a direct example of the charisma checking forcing a creature into enslavement.

So once the creature fails the charisma check, he essentially has a Super Permanent Duration geas/quest placed on him and that's why Planar Bound Outsiders don't cheat.

Dispel doesn't work on instantaneous stuff, but...

Remove Curse, Break Enchantment (up to fifth level), Greater Restoration, Heal, Limited Wish, Wish, Freedom and Miracle all seem to work on various instantaneous or otherwise not dispellable effects. Which of these in your should work on Planar Binding, if it's a compulsion?

I read the thread carefully but don't think it answers my question one way or another. Furthermore, there's no particular reason to believe that the elemental agreed to go in and then was trapped by the item, not the binding.

What I'm looking for is first or third party material that carefully explains the actual mechanism.

[gogogome]

Dispel doesn't work on instantaneous stuff, but...

Remove Curse, Break Enchantment (up to fifth level), Greater Restoration, Heal, Limited Wish, Wish, Freedom and Miracle all seem to work on various instantaneous or otherwise not dispellable effects. Which of these in your should work on Planar Binding, if it's a compulsion?

None. Planar Binding is not an enchantment effect. Its not a compulsion effect because it doesn't have the compulsion tag. It's not a mind-affecting effect because it doesn't have the mind-affecting tag.

Once the binding happens absolutely nothing can free the creature from the binding until he finishes his job. That's why its such a powerful spell. If the creature is in a dead magic zone, he still has to obey his binding.

I mentioned mindrape to help you understand how a instantaneous duration mind control effect looks like because mindrape victims are not freed by dead magic zones either.


I read the thread carefully but don't think it answers my question one way or another. Furthermore, there's no particular reason to believe that the elemental agreed to go in and then was trapped by the item, not the binding.

Read the eberron books that deal with elemental crafting. They go into detail about creating an infinite maze and the elemental forever wandering them generates the energy.

This is the answer and how the spell works. If you refuse to accept it then your not really trying to figure out how the rules work.


edit: Maybe this will help you understand further
Finger of Death is a death effect and is stopped by Death Ward.
Implosion, despite doing the exact same thing as Finger of Death (instant kill on failed save), it is NOT a death effect, therefore is not stopped by Death Ward.

Geas/Quest is a Mind-Affecting Compulsion effect and is stopped by protection from evil, dispel magic, etc.
Planar Binding, despite doing the exact same thing as Geas/Quest, is NOT a complusion/mind-affecting/enchantment effect, therefore is not stopped by protection from evil, dispel magic, etc.

Planar Binding is an Instantaneous Duration Geas/Quest effect that has none of the tags, weaknesses, etc. and the enslaved creature cannot be freed from it, ever, forever, until its job is done.

And the opposed charisma check is you dominating a monster like Dominate Monster or Charm. Its not a negotiation, its not a bribe. Those things merely give you a bonus to the charisma check. The charisma check is a dominate monster/charm/geas/quest effect, not a voluntarily agreement deal thing. That's Planar Ally, not Binding.

I can't be more clear than this. This is the best I can do.

[blackwindbears]

I can't be more clear than this. This is the best I can do.

I appreciate it and I'll check out the Eberron book, but it seems like you missed my point there. My point was that it's not Planar Binding that keeps the elemental in, but something about the item. In this case if it's a maze the required binding isn't necessarily: "do this maze forever", but maybe rather "go into this space". In my view that requires a much more straightforward reading of LPB. I haven't reviewed the Eberron stuff though, so I don't know.

You haven't lacked clarity. I just don't find it a particularly convincing argument. For example, when you talk about Protection from X the relevant line is:

"exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment (charm) effects and enchantment (compulsion) effects"

You have to take a very restrictive reading of "including" here as "including and limited exclusively to", but "including but not limited" to seems to be just as valid a reading.

It seems to me that you've taken a very conservative reading of every spell (including wish!) that could possibly free a compelled creature on the basis that being magically compelled doesn't count as magical Compulsion.

On the other hand you're applying a very liberal reading to the LPB text.

I'm not saying you're wrong to read the texts this way, but I just don't find it very persuasive. For example, I think RAW straightforwardly allows wish and miracle to release these sorts of magical compulsions. (Though I beg your forgiveness for pointing to a spell which has basically an ink blot at the end when describing what it can do, my only defense is that planar binding seems to be about as dependent on fiat).

I am more and more persuaded that #2 is probably the correct interpretation. Thanks for your help!

[NigelWalmsley]

In game: if you can summon something with Planar Binding and have it do services for you, you can also summon it with Planar Binding and have your Fighter friend kill it while it's stuck in the binding circle. Any creature smart enough to find holes in a contract it made as part of a Planar Binding is also smart enough to realize the consequences of doing so and make life choices that don't directly antagonize people who have demonstrated the ability to kill it.

Out of game: Planar Binding is supposed to represent a "deal with the devil" type situation (just summoning up an outsider and asking it for help is more Planar Ally). You could write up an actual contract and have the bind-ee try to find holes in it, but stopping the game to have the player and DM make opposed Profession (Lawyer) checks is even worse than using Planar Binding at all. Particularly because it is quite likely that one or both of the parties involved is smarter than the person who is supposed to be playing them.

[blackwindbears]

In game: if you can summon something with Planar Binding and have it do services for you, you can also summon it with Planar Binding and have your Fighter friend kill it while it's stuck in the binding circle. Any creature smart enough to find holes in a contract it made as part of a Planar Binding is also smart enough to realize the consequences of doing so and make life choices that don't directly antagonize people who have demonstrated the ability to kill it.

Out of game: Planar Binding is supposed to represent a "deal with the devil" type situation (just summoning up an outsider and asking it for help is more Planar Ally). You could write up an actual contract and have the bind-ee try to find holes in it, but stopping the game to have the player and DM make opposed Profession (Lawyer) checks is even worse than using Planar Binding at all. Particularly because it is quite likely that one or both of the parties involved is smarter than the person who is supposed to be playing them.

So it sounds to me like you're arguing more for #1?

Completely agreed that opposed Profession (lawyer) checks suck. Especially when it so rarely delivers a clear victory. Further DM having to rule on his own checks is horribly unfun for everyone involved. In my view, if the fiend is twisting words, the player should exclaim to the DM that they made a mistake *before* the fiend does anything to act on it.

[newguydude1]

Out of game: Planar Binding is supposed to represent a "deal with the devil" type situation (just summoning up an outsider and asking it for help is more Planar Ally). You could write up an actual contract and have the bind-ee try to find holes in it, but stopping the game to have the player and DM make opposed Profession (Lawyer) checks is even worse than using Planar Binding at all. Particularly because it is quite likely that one or both of the parties involved is smarter than the person who is supposed to be playing them.

no its not. planar binding is slavery.

[Crake]

no its not. planar binding is slavery.

It's not though. Slavery implies ownership. Planar binding only allows you to compel the creature to perform a stated service, of which, as stated in the spell description, impossible demands and unreasonable commands are never agreed to.


In game: if you can summon something with Planar Binding and have it do services for you, you can also summon it with Planar Binding and have your Fighter friend kill it while it's stuck in the binding circle. Any creature smart enough to find holes in a contract it made as part of a Planar Binding is also smart enough to realize the consequences of doing so and make life choices that don't directly antagonize people who have demonstrated the ability to kill it.

Keep in mind that killing a fiend isn't actually that much of a threat to them, and doing so would actually just make you an enemy that will be free to hunt you down as soon as they reform on their home plane, you would instead be safer keeping them permanently caged up, but even that becomes precarious, since the binding circle only lasts 1 day/level, unless you find some way to make it permanent, like some wondrous architecture binding circles or something like that. But even then, it's a delicate cage that could be broken easily by some mishap like an earthquake.


Out of game: Planar Binding is supposed to represent a "deal with the devil" type situation (just summoning up an outsider and asking it for help is more Planar Ally). You could write up an actual contract and have the bind-ee try to find holes in it, but stopping the game to have the player and DM make opposed Profession (Lawyer) checks is even worse than using Planar Binding at all. Particularly because it is quite likely that one or both of the parties involved is smarter than the person who is supposed to be playing them.

Planar binding is meant to be dangerous, and honestly, if you're not willing to risk playing with the intricacies of the spell with carefully worded pacts, and deceptive fiends, then you probably just shouldn't use the spell from an OOC perspective, and just use planar ally instead. Not everything has to be perfectly emulated for your 5head 30 int wizard by the way. Sure you may only have a fraction of the intellect of your wizard, but if you're gonna leave everything down to the numbers on your sheet rather than immersing yourself into the game and roleplaying your character, then what are you really even doing playing dnd, there are plenty of video games that let you play based on the stats of your characters rather than rp out the choices and actions of your character.

[blackwindbears]

Keep in mind that killing a fiend isn't actually that much of a threat to them, and doing so would actually just make you an enemy that will be free to hunt you down as soon as they reform on their home plane, you would instead be safer keeping them permanently caged up, but even that becomes precarious, since the binding circle only lasts 1 day/level, unless you find some way to make it permanent, like some wondrous architecture binding circles or something like that. But even then, it's a delicate cage that could be broken easily by some mishap like an earthquake.


Two questions:
1) What, in your view, compels their obedience to the letter of the agreement after let out of the circle?

2) Called creatures either *die for reals* (Core) or in the case of devils take 99 years to reform (FC2), on the case of demons reform but likely demoted (FC1), how would they be free to hunt you down?

Edit: Further, looking at the demons, almost none of them have plane shift. It seems to me that the ability to exact their plan of vengeance depends a lot on top level cosmology questions, like, how well known are portals to a given material plane, how accessible are they? If trivially accessed then it begs the question, why isn't the material plane overrun by demons?

In all other respects I think your explanation broadly makes sense. The "unreasonable commands" clause seems to be a problem for a hard #2 (most powerful, unbreakable enchantment (compulsion) effect). If a wish won't end it, what could possibly constitute unreasonable?

[Crake]

Two questions:
1) What, in your view, compels their obedience to the letter of the agreement after let out of the circle?

It's a magical pact that they agree to, being bound to their world (hence the planar binding). The planar binding spell facilitates the ability to make the pact, but it is ultimately up to the bound creature to agree. The charisma check is a mix of you forcing your will on the creature, but also how enticing you're able to be, but it is ultimately up to the DM to determine if a bargain is something the creature would consider unreasonable, so the DM always retains veto power to say no to your pact regardless of what you get on your opposed charisma check, but may also do the opposite, where if your request is reasonable enough, he would simply allow the creature to agree without the need to roll a dice.


2) Called creatures either *die for reals* (Core) or in the case of devils take 99 years to reform (FC2), on the case of demons reform but likely demoted (FC1), how would they be free to hunt you down?

Edit: Further, looking at the demons, almost none of them have plane shift. It seems to me that the ability to exact their plan of vengeance depends a lot on top level cosmology questions, like, how well known are portals to a given material plane, how accessible are they? If trivially accessed then it begs the question, why isn't the material plane overrun by demons?

Plane shift isn't the only way onto the material plane. A thrifty demon or devil can manage to find their way through the planes, or possibly find others who they can manipulate or pay for a means to arrive on the material plane. More powerful demons may even have cults of worshippers on the material that they may have as a contingency method or reviving themselves. Limited wish is a mere DC40 sacrifice check (May sound high, but sacrifice bonuses are really easy to boost), and is capable of resurrecting an outsider with no level loss. Many outsiders are also part of a heirarchy, so while you may not get retribution from the outsider themselves, their direct superior may take notice that their underling was killed, and take offense to it.

And sure, this might not apply to ever outsider you bind, but point is you don't know, unless you've done some research into the specific creature you're binding, but that in and of itself is way more involved than most people seem willing to get, if they aren't even interested in writing out agreements.


In all other respects I think your explanation broadly makes sense. The "unreasonable commands" clause seems to be a problem for a hard #2 (most powerful, unbreakable enchantment (compulsion) effect). If a wish won't end it, what could possibly constitute unreasonable?

Unreasonable is in the eyes of the beholder. This is also where the ability for subversion becomes an actual factor, because, especially if the bound creature is hostile, the opportunity for subversion is in fact what may make an otherwise unreasonable command something they might agree to.

[newguydude1]

It's a magical pact that they agree to, being bound to their world (hence the planar binding). The planar binding spell facilitates the ability to make the pact, but it is ultimately up to the bound creature to agree. The charisma check is a mix of you forcing your will on the creature, but also how enticing you're able to be, but it is ultimately up to the DM to determine if a bargain is something the creature would consider unreasonable, so the DM always retains veto power to say no to your pact regardless of what you get on your opposed charisma check, but may also do the opposite, where if your request is reasonable enough, he would simply allow the creature to agree without the need to roll a dice.

whisper demon agreed to be a lichs slave to the point of receiving friendly fire that possibly leads to its death. so the bar is very very very low unless you house rule.

oh and elemental accepting eternal bondage.

[icefractal]

As it's written, it doesn't make any sense to consider a deal that's simply unfair to be an "unreasonable command":

You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward. You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature’s Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward.
If the creature could simply reject any deal that wasn't good enough, this whole section is meaningless. RAW, it really looks like the only difference between "Pose for a painting for a few hours, and in exchange you get a copy of the painting and a big bag of diamonds" and "Go work in the acid mines for a week, no payment" is that the latter get a +0 on the Charisma check and the former might get as high as +6.

So what is an "unreasonable command"? I'd consider it to include "obviously self-destructive orders", as barred by most mind-control spells, and also things seriously against the being's nature, like telling an Archon to help plunge a fairly nice city into violent anarchy.


Now if I was rewriting the spell? I'd probably say that there are degrees:
1) Would do it for free
2) Would do it for minor/moderate payment (not necessarily in gold)
3) Would do it for major payment
4) Would only do it for something big - life-changing payment, saving themselves or someone very important, to accomplish a major goal, etc
5) Would never do it

Based on what you're asking and the nature of the being, determine which category it falls into. You can make a deal based on that with no compulsion needed, and the spell will enforce it on both parties. Or, you can try the Charisma check to shift it a step lower (or maybe multiple steps with a high enough margin?), with the downside that the bound creature now probably hates you and will try to subvert the orders if it can.


The biggest issue with both this and Planar Ally is that often it makes logical sense for an outsider to help for free and even bring friends, when the stakes are high enough. An ancient gate to the abyss threatens to crack open and leave the demons free entry to the prime material, and you call an Astral Deva for assistance. Is it really going to refuse if you don't have anything to offer, or is it going to say "Not today, demon cultists!" and go in there smiting, maybe even call in a bunch of its friends to help?

It's the "Why doesn't Elminster solve this problem, if it really threatens the whole world?" issue, except worse because there are a large, possibly infinite, number of these outsiders.

On the gripping hand, Goku's greatest weapon did turn out to be snitching, so maybe that's appropriate. :smallbiggrin:

[Crake]

If the creature could simply reject any deal that wasn't good enough, this whole section is meaningless. RAW, it really looks like the only difference between "Pose for a painting for a few hours, and in exchange you get a copy of the painting and a big bag of diamonds" and "Go work in the acid mines for a week, no payment" is that the latter get a +0 on the Charisma check and the former might get as high as +6.

Not true. The fact that the creature is compelled to follow through with the agreement means that it can't agree, then back out later. If it agrees, it is compelled to carry out the agreement, even if it decides to change its mind later. It essentially acts as a binding agreement (hint hint) that the creature cannot break.


whisper demon agreed to be a lichs slave to the point of receiving friendly fire that possibly leads to its death. so the bar is very very very low unless you house rule.

The issue with this statement is that we don't know the exact terms of the service in question, and the encounter in question is very vague on the matter, it merely says that the lich used planar binding to bind the demon, and doesn't go into any details, because they don't actually matter for the encounter itself.


oh and elemental accepting eternal bondage.

Yeah, but elementals are stupid, and are essentially the cattle of the planes, so that's not exactly surprising. That being said, is there any actual material that states that the eternal bondage of elementals happened specifically through a planar binding? The spell may have been used to call the elementals, but from there elementals are rather easily subdued and bound through other means. (I take it you're referring to eberron stuff here).


The biggest issue with both this and Planar Ally is that often it makes logical sense for an outsider to help for free and even bring friends, when the stakes are high enough. An ancient gate to the abyss threatens to crack open and leave the demons free entry to the prime material, and you call an Astral Deva for assistance. Is it really going to refuse if you don't have anything to offer, or is it going to say "Not today, demon cultists!" and go in there smiting, maybe even call in a bunch of its friends to help?

Well, yes, you see, there's nothing stopping you from using planar binding merely as a means of gaining a contact, or even as a transportation spell. I've had players do that all the time, use planar binding to summon an angel, break the magical circle trapping them, and then request help through actually just roleplaying it out. But the thing is, using the spell that way just plucks a random creature from the cosmos, and sometimes those creatures are in the middle of something important, something they deem more important than whatever your current issue is.

Now, of course, if you have a world ending event, then lets be honest, those higher powers should ALREADY be involved.

[icefractal]

Not true. The fact that the creature is compelled to follow through with the agreement means that it can't agree, then back out later. If it agrees, it is compelled to carry out the agreement, even if it decides to change its mind later. It essentially acts as a binding agreement (hint hint) that the creature cannot break.And how does that square with the part about getting a +0 to +6 bonus on the Charisma check based on the task and reward (which you "perhaps" offer or perhaps not)?


If the creature wins the opposed check, it refuses service. If the creature can simply veto any deal it doesn't like, then why is it making a check to refuse service? If it doesn't want to serve under any circumstances, it can simply decide any possible deal you offer is "unreasonable".

Also, more circumstantial, but opposed Charisma checks are not how normal negotiations work. So it's not like you're just putting them in a circle and then convincing them as you would anyone else.

[Saint-Just]

None. Planar Binding is not an enchantment effect. Its not a compulsion effect because it doesn't have the compulsion tag. It's not a mind-affecting effect because it doesn't have the mind-affecting tag.

Even Mindr*pe (which you used for comparison) is supposed to be reversible by Miracle or Wish, saying that Planar Binding is not is making that relatively early spell absurdly powerful.

Also if we are talking about Lesser Planar Binding I do not see what prevents Break Enchantment from "reversing an instantaneous effect" as the text of Break Enchanrment says.

[InvisibleBison]

whisper demon agreed to be a lichs slave to the point of receiving friendly fire that possibly leads to its death. so the bar is very very very low unless you house rule.

oh and elemental accepting eternal bondage.

These are, as I understand, drawn from examples, not rules text.

Even if they are rules, they're from optional supplements, not the core books, so there's no guarantee that they'll be in play in any given campaign.

Even if they are in play in a given campaign, the primary source rule means that they can't override the actual text of the planar binding spell, so if the DM considers them to do so then they are invalid.

[Efrate]

There are reasons that the planar binding line are arguably the strongest spells in existence, and a large part of that is that there is no escape once they agree until the task is done. Once the agreement is done that's it. Full stop.

You have an outsider slave for a certain amount time while you finish whatever. You can also very easily make a permanent circle and trap them forever, impotent and weakening until they agree, lower stats with any number of means or just threaten to kill them forever. Wish barring fiat does not free them. Travelling through time to make it so they do not ever agree might, but that also might create a divergent timeline and anything involving time gets messy.

And the their boss is mad agreement is easily sidestepped by just binding devils. No retribution from the higher ups. Do not be so weak in the future os their reaction.

The spell makes them obey once they fail their charisma check, possibly once they fail the origional will save if the binder is smart, it's just a matter of time.

To be fair, you need at least 1 magic circle, maybe 2 if you are worried, possibly dimensional anchor, then you check SR, then will save, then charisma check. That's a lot of hoops to jump though.

First you overcome their native resistance to magic by being stronger caster. Then you overpower their mind and will forcing them to come to you regardless of anything else, then you persuade them by sheer force of personality. If they could seek retribution you have already proven you are better and stronger, so would they risk permanent death? Demotion? Displeasing their superiors?

[Crake]

And how does that square with the part about getting a +0 to +6 bonus on the Charisma check based on the task and reward (which you "perhaps" offer or perhaps not)?

If the creature can simply veto any deal it doesn't like, then why is it making a check to refuse service? If it doesn't want to serve under any circumstances, it can simply decide any possible deal you offer is "unreasonable".

Also, more circumstantial, but opposed Charisma checks are not how normal negotiations work. So it's not like you're just putting them in a circle and then convincing them as you would anyone else.

There are times when an offer would not be amicable, but may still be within the realms of reasonable, and you need to consider the hostile nature of the spell. The charisma check, and it's bonuses represent a level of negotiation, hence why sweeter deals give you a bonus.

[Tiktakkat]

I read the thread carefully but don't think it answers my question one way or another. Furthermore, there's no particular reason to believe that the elemental agreed to go in and then was trapped by the item, not the binding.

What I'm looking for is first or third party material that carefully explains the actual mechanism.

No such material exists. The best you can get is inference and tradition.

First, it should be noted that planar binding sets a "trap". The creature to be bound is brought to the location by deception, so there is no voluntary agreement right from the beginning.
Second, referencing prior edition material (namely, module S4 Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, where the spell ensnarement, the text for which is nearly identical to that of planar binding, originally appeared), it can be seen that instead of Charisma checks and saving throws, Intelligence checks were used, for everything from getting the creature to fall for the original trap to escaping to making the deal.
Third, again referencing prior edition material, said spell appears "exclusively" in the Demonomicon of Iggwilv, making it effectively inaccessible to the "general public", as well as highly specialized in focus (which is to say, "summoning demons and maybe other fiends"), on top of the exceptional danger (a rather absolute 1-in-20 chance of getting dragged off to the Abyss, create a new character).

Overall, aside from the "this should never have been converted to planar binding and made universally accessible" issue, there is a strong suggestion that the entire process is one of out-thinking (converted to out-presence-ing) a fiend (or celestial; or cordant) into some sort of contract that it must then abide by "because".
"Because" why?
"Because" the rules say so.

Why would the rules say so?

Well, if you read some of the contract stuff in Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells (however excessive you may find it), it would seem that it is a Law of the Multiverse or equivalent thereof. That is, the process of making a bargain via planar binding is "enforced" by the underlying laws of reality, much the way making one of those contracts in FCII gets you consigned to the Nine Hells with no appeal or what not.
And, implied by the absence of detail in the spell, those opposed Charisma checks (remember: originally Intelligence checks) reflects all the dotting of i's and crossing of t's required to have the subject fulfill the contract with no cheating.

I would at this point "compare and contrast" to planar ally, and its predecessor in S4, exaction (which was updated and converted to a wizard spell for some reason), in which the caster makes a payment - a "sacrifice" for exaction, and secures the, reasonably, willing service of whatever outsider was called.
And I would note the other spells from the Demonomicon of Iggwilv that appeared, specifically dolor and torment, that explicitly torture a called creature to get it to submit.

And then it becomes an issue of rather standard demonology tradition, in which wizards call up fiends and bind them to service.
The binder class from the Tome of Magic is openly predicated on this, with some serial numbers obscured and the source element fudged to allow access to all alignments. Effectively, the question as to why vestiges do not "cheat" is on the same level as to why creatures subjected to planar binding do not cheat.
And the answer is the same - because the rules say so, implying the Multiverse makes the bound creature do what it agreed to do.

Maybe there is some specific bit lost in the wall of text of the various and sundry sourcebooks WotC (and TSR) (and whoever) have published over the years to say something explicit, but again, it is mostly inference and tradition.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Effectively, the question as to why vestiges do not "cheat" is on the same level as to why creatures subjected to planar binding do not cheat.
And the answer is the same - because the rules say so, implying the Multiverse makes the bound creature do what it agreed to do.

The two scenarios are entirely unrelated, actually. Vestiges don't cheat on the binding because being bound is the only way for them to temporarily escape the spaceless, timeless, and formless void in which they're trapped to experience existence for a little while--hence why even if you fail the binding check you still get to bind the vestige, it just gets more free rein over your body and mind--and if a vestige becomes known for "cheating" by exerting influence during a good pact or fully possessing a binder or whatever, welp, everyone stops binding it because it's too risky to do so and the vestige is screwed for eternity. If vestiges were just hanging around on some Outer Plane doing their own thing and got annoyed at being interrupted by mortals all the time, like outsiders are, they wouldn't be nearly so accommodating, so one really can't draw conclusions for one based on the other.

That said:


Overall, aside from the "this should never have been converted to planar binding and made universally accessible" issue, there is a strong suggestion that the entire process is one of out-thinking (converted to out-presence-ing) a fiend (or celestial; or cordant) into some sort of contract that it must then abide by "because".
"Because" why?
"Because" the rules say so.

Why would the rules say so?

Well, if you read some of the contract stuff in Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells (however excessive you may find it), it would seem that it is a Law of the Multiverse or equivalent thereof. That is, the process of making a bargain via planar binding is "enforced" by the underlying laws of reality, much the way making one of those contracts in FCII gets you consigned to the Nine Hells with no appeal or what not.

The idea that planar binding is merely hooking into some greater cosmic mechanism rather than doing any sort of compulsion on its own does seem to make the most sense. It's much like how in myths and stories either trapping a genie or freeing a trapped genie (depending on the particular source) entitles whoever frees them to three wishes. Why wishes? Why three of them? Why can't certain things be wished for? Why does the genie have to do it? Why can't the genie take revenge? Because "shut up, that's how it works," that's why.

It doesn't particularly matter whether it's due to an intrinsic trait of genies, a grand debt to mortalkind that the genies are paying off, a bargain made eons ago between the rulers of the genie races and the first mortals, or whatever else, the point is that it's a known thing that Just Works and the mortal doesn't need to use any sort of mind control, legalese, trickery, or other tactics to get the genie to agree to granting him three wishes, it's only the particulars of each wish that are up for debate and interpretation.


That's essentially how I run planar binding and similar in my own games. The Pact Primeval (or a similar primordial contract among outsiders, my players don't know the exact details) has a clause to the effect of "Whensoever an outsider is encircled thrice by a Diagram of Obligation and its name is spoken thrice aloud by a mortal, said outsider must render unto said mortal a service of the mortal's choosing with full faith and complete honesty," and the Charisma check is basically the mortal going "Look, you know and I know that you can't get out of here until you agree to a service and you can't cheat on whatever service you agree to, and you need to do something for me to let you out, so here's why I think you should accept this service," no fancy contracts or magical compulsions required to enforce anything.

Why would outsiders have ever agreed to that kind of thing in the first place? Only they could say, and they're not telling. Perhaps it was done as a concession to get something else they really wanted. Perhaps all the factions of outsiders agreed to it because they figured it would affect the opposing factions more than themselves. Perhaps the fiends "submitted" to the "burden" because they knew a bunch of naive and overconfident mortal casters would end up calling them to the Prime, getting themselves killed through poor wording of a service, and letting the fiends run free. Regardless, it's a known thing among outsiders that they're subject to binding and while they don't like being bound it's probably not the worst thing they've had to deal with in the past millennium.

[Tiktakkat]

The two scenarios are entirely unrelated, actually. Vestiges don't cheat on the binding because being bound is the only way for them to temporarily escape the spaceless, timeless, and formless void in which they're trapped to experience existence for a little while--hence why even if you fail the binding check you still get to bind the vestige, it just gets more free rein over your body and mind--and if a vestige becomes known for "cheating" by exerting influence during a good pact or fully possessing a binder or whatever, welp, everyone stops binding it because it's too risky to do so and the vestige is screwed for eternity. If vestiges were just hanging around on some Outer Plane doing their own thing and got annoyed at being interrupted by mortals all the time, like outsiders are, they wouldn't be nearly so accommodating, so one really can't draw conclusions for one based on the other.

Well, yes they are, actually.

The "real world legends and literature" referenced below. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_demons_in_the_Ars_Goetia)
See any familiar names or symbols there?

Tome of Magic
page 4
"Pact Magic: Characters who use this form of magic gain power by making pacts with powerful creatures. In real world legends and literature, evil or foolish mortals usually make such pacts with fiends, gaining power in exchange for either their souls or unnamed services. This treatment, though intriguing, is rather limited. In particular, the need for practitioners of pact magic to be either evil or very unwise effectively negates its use by player characters and relegates it to NPCs. Thus, the pact magic chapter takes a different approach, providing an enjoyable and balanced way for virtually any character to become involved in pact magic while remaining true to its roots in legend and maintaining its taboo feel."

page 7
"LESSER PACT MAGIC
. . .
BARGAINS WITH OUTSIDERS
Mortals can make binding agreements with outsiders. Spells such as lesser planar ally, planar ally, and greater planar ally allow a spellcaster to bargain for the services of an outsider or elemental. The planar binding spells work in a similar manner, allowing a character to task a particular creature in return for its freedom."


Planar binding and planar ally spells are "lesser" forms of the same magic used to bind vestiges.
The vestiges themselves are inspired by "real world legends and literature", and indeed use names and symbols from such sources, but tone the whole thing down so PCs can use it without being evil or getting dragged to the Lower Planes.
Vestiges do not "cheat" because the rules say so - explicitly for playability.
Otherwise, meh - make that Charisma check and when you fail, your PC takes the vestige's place while it ambles off in your newly possessed body - much the way it does to a lesser degree if you make a bad pact or fail to keep its requirements.
(And no, people would no longer stop binding a vestige anymore than they would stop trying to use planar binding, planar ally, or just plain gate to contact Orcus or Asmodeus. Power is power, and people who want power are not going to be deterred because someone "clearly inferior" to them messed up trying to attain it. The fact that you must have a contest of wills to bind a vestige rather overtly shows that the vestiges always want more than binders want to give, yet binders always keep summoning them.)

The two scenarios are explicitly related, both in rules and design intent of function and flavor.


Oh, and since you bring up genies, there is a considerable amount of traditional lore regarding them.
And there is also a significant source of game lore on the subject, namely ALQ4 Secrets of the Lamp, a boxed sourcebook for the AD&D 2nd Al-Qadim setting. It goes into a rather good bit of detail on the status of genies relative to the world, and so why they can be bound, how they are bound, and other bits and pieces.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Well, yes they are, actually.

The "real world legends and literature" referenced below. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_demons_in_the_Ars_Goetia)
See any familiar names or symbols there?
[...]
The two scenarios are explicitly related, both in rules and design intent of function and flavor.

I'm well aware of Tome of Magic's real-world influences, and have actually read the Ars Goetia myself.

The thing is, though, that for all the ToM designers were inspired by the flavor of the Goetic demons, the beings in real-world mythology from which vestiges draw their influence are basically D&D fiends that exist inside the multiverse whereas the actual vestiges exist outside the multiverse (or at least in a part of it that's otherwise completely inaccessible). So while calling up Balam the Great King of Hell would indeed be basically the same in terms of flavor and mechanics as casting planar binding, calling up Balam the Bitter Angel has no relation to planar binding whatsoever in terms of what motivates the vestige to agree to the binding, how the binding occurs, or what manifestation the vestige takes in the world.

Both functionally and thematically, the two things are completely unrelated in-setting except insofar as e.g. summoning a fire elemental and casting fireball are both technically "bringing fire into the world" and thus tangentially related.


Planar binding and planar ally spells are "lesser" forms of the same magic used to bind vestiges.

Manifestly untrue. Or do you also believe the Truenaming section when it says that spells like power word: kill and unname are "lesser" forms of truenaming? :smallamused:


(And no, people would no longer stop binding a vestige anymore than they would stop trying to use planar binding, planar ally, or just plain gate to contact Orcus or Asmodeus. Power is power, and people who want power are not going to be deterred because someone "clearly inferior" to them messed up trying to attain it. The fact that you must have a contest of wills to bind a vestige rather overtly shows that the vestiges always want more than binders want to give, yet binders always keep summoning them.)

The worst consequence that a binder can possibly suffer as it stands is that they call up a vestige, flub the negotiation, and are subject to minor personality quirks like "must dance if you hear music" or "constantly feel minorly depressed" while bound; said consequence can be overcome easily with a minor act of will, at a cost of minor ongoing handicaps thereafter, and the consequence will last for a guaranteed maximum of 24 hours if you don't have a way to expel the vestige earlier. "Minor personality changes with handicaps for a day" isn't a terrible life-endangering risk, it's what happens when you have a bit too much to drink one night, embarrass yourself at the bar, and get a hangover the day after, and even the most novice and un-Charismatic 1st-level binder who doesn't even try to ever score a good pact is never in any more danger than that.

If flubbing the negotiation with a specific vestige suddenly meant that it could actively control you and/or refuse to leave after 24 hours, doing who-knows-what in the meantime while it has your body and imposing who-knows-what lingering consequences for who-knows-how-long if you actually do manage to get rid of it, you can bet that people would start avoiding binding that vestige as soon as word got around (and, since all binders can bind all non-epic vestiges without having to specifically learn about them, one can assume that the knowledge surrounding the vestiges is quite easily obtained and spread). If that were the case when flubbing negotiations with any vestige, you can bet that binding would go from "the quick, safe, and easy path for anyone who doesn't have sorcerous talent and can't hack it as a wizard" to "the path that only a bleeping idiot would even consider" and would quickly become as rare and dangerous as actual diabolical pacts.


Oh, and since you bring up genies, there is a considerable amount of traditional lore regarding them.
And there is also a significant source of game lore on the subject, namely ALQ4 Secrets of the Lamp, a boxed sourcebook for the AD&D 2nd Al-Qadim setting. It goes into a rather good bit of detail on the status of genies relative to the world, and so why they can be bound, how they are bound, and other bits and pieces.

That's the case for in-game genie lore, yes, with which I'm also familiar. I was referring to mythical and pop-culture genies, where any mortal can get any genie to Just Work when it comes to wish-granting and they don't need to know the specific lore and logic behind the genies in their particular mythos or story to do so.

Similarly, in my games someone casting planar binding doesn't need to know or care why an instantaneous non-Enchantment spell can have an ongoing compulsive effect on a bound outsider, nor do they need to take any special precautions involving baatezu-grade contracts to prevent betrayal or failure of the binding, they just need to know that the spell works and everything is hunky-dory from there.

[Bohandas]

I, too, am wondering just what compels the bound creature to perform the service once it is released from the magic circle, given that 1.) it is explicitly not [Mind-Affecting], 2.) It does not impose a penalty for non-compliance like Geas does and 3.) It is not limited to [Lawful] creatures and in fact can explicitly call [Chaotic] creatures.

So what's the keep the called being from just lying about agreeing, or from changing its mind

[Tiktakkat]

Both functionally and thematically, the two things are completely unrelated in-setting except insofar as e.g. summoning a fire elemental and casting fireball are both technically "bringing fire into the world" and thus tangentially related.

plus:


Manifestly untrue. Or do you also believe the Truenaming section when it says that spells like power word: kill and unname are "lesser" forms of truenaming? :smallamused:

Do I also believe the rules . . . when the rules say what . . . the rules are?

Umm . . .

Yes. Yes I do believe that the rules are what the rules say they are.
I am not exactly sure how one could play the game if they did not believe what the rules say the rules are.


The worst consequence that a binder can possibly suffer as it stands . . .

Why do you believe that?
Because the rules say so?
Hmm . . .


That's the case for in-game genie lore, yes, with which I'm also familiar.

That was intended as a general recommendation for anyone who might not be familiar with the source.
As I originally said, without any direct rules, all that is available is inference and comparison, and so those can be used as inspiration for explaining why planar bound outsiders do not cheat.

[Sam K]

Why would outsiders have ever agreed to that kind of thing in the first place? Only they could say, and they're not telling. Perhaps it was done as a concession to get something else they really wanted. Perhaps all the factions of outsiders agreed to it because they figured it would affect the opposing factions more than themselves. Perhaps the fiends "submitted" to the "burden" because they knew a bunch of naive and overconfident mortal casters would end up calling them to the Prime, getting themselves killed through poor wording of a service, and letting the fiends run free. Regardless, it's a known thing among outsiders that they're subject to binding and while they don't like being bound it's probably not the worst thing they've had to deal with in the past millennium.

If mortals with class levels give you a free ticket to the prime material plane, AND a chance to influence their alignment (most people who summon demons do not do so to do things that further the cause of Good), why wouldn't you take it? Or rather, why wouldn't you force a minion to take it? If they're competent, they'll use the opportunity to ensnare another mortal soul or two - souls with PC CLASS LEVELS - if they screw up and get permanently bound or destroyed they probably weren't much use to you anyway.

Essentially, the rank and file fiends are the field sales dealing with obnoxious customers, and the archfiends are the board of directors reaping most of the profits. Sure, it may be obnoxious of your best Pitfiend gets whisked away when he's giving a presentation at the all-hands staff meeting, but anyone who can bind such a powerful fiend is likely quite the prize as well.

In short, welcome to hell: everyone's in sales, and if you're not hitting your quota you're the product.

So why do good and neutral (and non-aligned) outsiders put up with it? It probably isn't a great idea to leave the entire market of "professional services" to the fiends. Long term, conceding even high maintenance customers to the competition might cause mortals to lose faith in you.

[noob]

If mortals with class levels give you a free ticket to the prime material plane, AND a chance to influence their alignment (most people who summon demons do not do so to do things that further the cause of Good), why wouldn't you take it? Or rather, why wouldn't you force a minion to take it? If they're competent, they'll use the opportunity to ensnare another mortal soul or two - souls with PC CLASS LEVELS - if they screw up and get permanently bound or destroyed they probably weren't much use to you anyway.

Essentially, the rank and file fiends are the field sales dealing with obnoxious customers, and the archfiends are the board of directors reaping most of the profits. Sure, it may be obnoxious of your best Pitfiend gets whisked away when he's giving a presentation at the all-hands staff meeting, but anyone who can bind such a powerful fiend is likely quite the prize as well.

In short, welcome to hell: everyone's in sales, and if you're not hitting your quota you're the product.

So why do good and neutral (and non-aligned) outsiders put up with it? It probably isn't a great idea to leave the entire market of "professional services" to the fiends. Long term, conceding even high maintenance customers to the competition might cause mortals to lose faith in you.

Also people rarely summons good aligned outsiders to mistreat them because they fear that they might face retaliation from other good outsiders if they treat them badly: some of the high ranking good outsiders are scary(ex: solars).

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I, too, am wondering just what compels the bound creature to perform the service once it is released from the magic circle, given that 1.) it is explicitly not [Mind-Affecting], 2.) It does not impose a penalty for non-compliance like Geas does and 3.) It is not limited to [Lawful] creatures and in fact can explicitly call [Chaotic] creatures.

So what's the keep the called being from just lying about agreeing, or from changing its mind

For your point (1), keep in mind that a spell can involve a compulsion without being a (Compulsion). Implosion is an instant-kill spell, but it doesn't have the [Death] descriptor because the descriptor involves sudden death via stuffing someone's soul full of negative energy while implosion involves sudden death by kersploding their body, so effects that enhance or protect against [Death] spells don't affect implosion.

Likewise, it's possible for planar binding to in fact involve a mental compulsion of some sort but not be an Enchantment (Compulsion) [Mind-Affecting] spell because the method of compulsion it uses is not something that elves are better at resisting or that would be blocked by a mind blank or the like. If it relies on an innate feature of outsiders, a pre-existing contract, or whatever, it could be a pretty heavy compulsion yet have nothing to do with Enchantment, the same way that constructs built for personal defense like Shield Guardians obey their master due to that being an inherent feature of their "programming" rather than through any sort of separate mental control effect (which, as Constructs, they'd be immune to).

For (2) and (3), those are easy. A geas'd creature straight-up cannot disobey its instructions on its own initiative (the spell only imposes a penalty if a creature is prevented from fulfilling its instructions by an outside force), so planar binding doing the same thing isn't out of the ordinary, and if you're forcing a creature to obey your instructions rather than persuading them to agree to it then the creature's willingness to keep its word is immaterial.


plus:

Do I also believe the rules . . . when the rules say what . . . the rules are?

Umm . . .

Yes. Yes I do believe that the rules are what the rules say they are.
I am not exactly sure how one could play the game if they did not believe what the rules say the rules are.

Statements like

By incorporating a bit of truename speech into their spells, [spellcasters] can achieve targeted but powerful effects beyond the reach of traditional arcane or divine magic
and

Truename magic already exists in a limited form in every D&D campaign. It appears in the command and power word spells...originate from the power of truenaming, using a single word to wreak mighty magical effects. Though powerful, they are merely spells and lack the reusability and flexibility of real truename magic
are not rules. They're bits of flavor in the purely-flavor section at the beginning of the Truenaming chapter which (A) never come up again (c'mon, a bunch of new truenaming-themed spells and not a single one is a power word?); (B) are blatant retcons to make truenaming seem cooler, as truenames and the various primordial languages are separate things and spells like command use common words backed by Enchantment, not truenames; and (C) aren't backed up by the mechanics at all, because utterances are pathetically weak compared to spells and spells incorporating Truename components aren't noticeably better than ones without them. Trying to reason about either spellcasting or truenaming based on those statements as if there were some sort of coherent flavor or mechanical connection will lead you nowhere.

In the same way, while there are flavor bits in the Binding chapter that assert that soul binding is related to planar binding (and that planar binding is the "lesser" of the two), those are meaningless statements not supported by the flavor of either kind of magic, the setting lore, or the actual mechanics involved, and so trying to reason about planar binding based on anything involving vestiges is a dead end.


If mortals with class levels give you a free ticket to the prime material plane, AND a chance to influence their alignment[...]why wouldn't you take it?
[...]
So why do good and neutral (and non-aligned) outsiders put up with it? It probably isn't a great idea to leave the entire market of "professional services" to the fiends. Long term, conceding even high maintenance customers to the competition might cause mortals to lose faith in you.

Oh, I wasn't saying that the fiends don't absolutely love to take advantage of foolish mortal summoners, 'cause they really really do, just that in-setting people don't actually know for sure whether outsiders set up the whole binding thing in the first place for that reason or whether it was for some other reason and modern fiends are just taking advantage of the situation.

[Tiktakkat]

Statements like

and

are not rules.

Except of course they are.


They're bits of flavor in the purely-flavor section at the beginning of the Truenaming chapter which (A) never come up again (c'mon, a bunch of new truenaming-themed spells and not a single one is a power word?);

Irrelevant.


(B) are blatant retcons to make truenaming seem cooler, as truenames and the various primordial languages are separate things and spells like command use common words backed by Enchantment, not truenames;

The mere addition of truenaming and binding are retcons.
If retcons are not rules, then neither form of magic exists at all.


and (C) aren't backed up by the mechanics at all, because utterances are pathetically weak compared to spells and spells incorporating Truename components aren't noticeably better than ones without them. Trying to reason about either spellcasting or truenaming based on those statements as if there were some sort of coherent flavor or mechanical connection will lead you nowhere.

They are backed up by the mechanics.
Because they are lesser forms, they do not carry the same effects.
Reasoning leads directly to the existence of different classes, with different "spell lists", and different mechanics for using them.


In the same way, while there are flavor bits in the Binding chapter that assert that soul binding is related to planar binding (and that planar binding is the "lesser" of the two), those are meaningless statements not supported by the flavor of either kind of magic, the setting lore, or the actual mechanics involved, and so trying to reason about planar binding based on anything involving vestiges is a dead end.

No, it is the same end - different levels of "binding", different classes, different mechanics.

What remains in both cases are the relationships of the effects, and parallels in usage and effects within the mechanics of the rules.
That there are gaps (to put it kindly) in the rules, and the flavor, does not change the relationship, clearly declared to exist within the text of the rules book itself.

[Sam K]

Oh, I wasn't saying that the fiends don't absolutely love to take advantage of foolish mortal summoners, 'cause they really really do, just that in-setting people don't actually know for sure whether outsiders set up the whole binding thing in the first place for that reason or whether it was for some other reason and modern fiends are just taking advantage of the situation.

Completely agree with you there.

For all we know, it might be exploiting a mechanic of the multiverse, and "binding" may be viewed like "gravity" by outsiders. It can be inconvenient, fatal or beneficial, and if you're smart you can exploit it to your advantage, but dealing with it is mostly "built in" to your life, you don't actively think about it.

[redking]

Outsiders that can be bound by planar binding spells are subject to rules that mortals are free from, because of their nature. It's like gravity. It just is.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The mere addition of truenaming and binding are retcons.
If retcons are not rules, then neither form of magic exists at all.

They are backed up by the mechanics.
Because they are lesser forms, they do not carry the same effects.
Reasoning leads directly to the existence of different classes, with different "spell lists", and different mechanics for using them.

{scrubbed}

The mechanical addition of binding and truenaming and vestiges and utterances and all that jazz to the rules corpus of D&D is rules text, and not a retcon, as by definition it isn't contradicting anything that came before. Changing the rules of binding or truenaming involves a change to how those magics function and would be a houserule.

A statement that the planar binding line, geas, and cleric casting are all "lesser form of binding" is flavor text, and not a retcon, as there was not previously a binding subsystem to compare them to. (It is, however, incorrect flavor text, since all three of those things are in fact more powerful than soul binding and not "lesser" at all.) Reflavoring binding to be, say, a quick-'n'-dirty version of lesser planar binding that even an apprentice can use but in exchange is only able to call creatures so weak they aren't even "creatures" at all doesn't affect the existence or efficacy of binding at all (and helpfully corrects the mistaken flavor implications).

A statement that command is a "lesser form of truenaming" is flavor text, and is a retcon because command is a [Language-Dependent] spell and so works using plain ol' regular language the target must understand and has always been presented as a "say one word in Common and the target does it," rather than using or mentioning anything about truenames. Completely ignoring the dramatic flavor pronouncements in the truenaming section doesn't affect the existence or (lack of) efficacy of truenaming at all.


What remains in both cases are the relationships of the effects, and parallels in usage and effects within the mechanics of the rules.
That there are gaps (to put it kindly) in the rules, and the flavor, does not change the relationship, clearly declared to exist within the text of the rules book itself.

By definition any gaps between actual rules and declared flavor will change the context of those rules and that flavor. Remember that this whole tangent was started because folks were trying to extrapolate the flavor of planar binding based on the rules of planar binding, and then you added in an attempt to extrapolate the flavor of planar binding based on the rules and flavor of soul binding under the assumption that the two have anything in common.

You might as well attempt to extrapolate something about commune with lesser spirit based on the speak with dead spell or vice versa. Both of them let you ask 1 question per 2 levels of a spiritual whatsit and both of them fail if the whatsit was asked any questions in the past week, so if you're not sure how something in speak with dead works you can look at commune with lesser spirit to figure it out, right?

Wrong, because the "spirit" mentioned in commune with lesser spirit is a defined category of creature in the rules that can be interacted with in many different ways, while the "imprinted knowledge" mentioned in speak with dead is a non-creature entity that can only be interacted with via that one spell--much like how outsiders are distinct creatures that live in a distinct place and operate according to distinct rules interactions while vestiges are non-creatures that don't live in an indistinct non-place and are completely impossible to interact with except via specific binding-related rules, in fact. There are only superficial flavor similarities overlaying dramatically different flavor and mechanics beneath, and any attempt to draw conclusions from the superficial flavor text in a spell or a chapter introduction is misguided.

[Tiktakkat]

There are only superficial flavor similarities overlaying dramatically different flavor and mechanics beneath, and any attempt to draw conclusions from the superficial flavor text in a spell or a chapter introduction is misguided.

I disagree on all counts.
I think anyone looking to understand why planar bound outsiders do not "cheat" can find reasonable inspiration in looking at Pact magic and vestiges, and I have explained why.

[Psyren]

I think whether and how far a bound outsider will attempt (or even succeed at) subverting an instruction depends on too many factors to answer in a vacuum - there's the outsider in question, the nature of the service, the specific wording of the request, the abilities and reputation (if any) of the spellcaster doing the asking, their relation (if any) to the outsider being bound outside of the binding itself, and even external factors such as planar and divine politics and agendas can all play a role. All of these should be considered, if not necessarily used or exploited, by a savvy GM.

[Bohandas]

There's an implication that the carrot in the arrangement is sending the outsider back once the task is completed. Why this should be the case however is questionable. Especially in the casd of demons, who, on the materia; plane, are afforded easier targets and also can't be killed permanently

[Efrate]

A called creature can be killed (or discorporated or somesuch for 100 years depending). A summoned creature cannot be killed, but binding is a calling effect.

[Bohandas]

Demons just flat out cannot be permanently killed outside of the abyss. If they're slain on some other plane they re-form in the abyss over the course of 100 years

[newguydude1]

Yeah, but elementals are stupid, and are essentially the cattle of the planes, so that's not exactly surprising. That being said, is there any actual material that states that the eternal bondage of elementals happened specifically through a planar binding? The spell may have been used to call the elementals, but from there elementals are rather easily subdued and bound through other means. (I take it you're referring to eberron stuff here)..

the feat directly and unambiguously says you must use the planar binding's charisma check to compel the elemental to accept the bondage.