Getting wishes from an Efreeti

[Zanos]

The problem here is that the examples are not part of the rules.

They are.

Forced to serve for 500 years thanks to a carefully negotiated binding spell. Negotiation implies that they accepted the terms and weren't simply compelled into such a long term contract.

The door to this room is locked (Open Lock DC 35). Inside is a powerful balor demon, forced to serve the Votaries for five hundred years by means of a carefully negotiated greater planar binding spell. Its duties consist of torturing captives and learning whatever facts it can for Crestian (see area 13). The demon’s victims rarely last for long as it immolates them in its excitement. The balor resents its binding, so it does what it can to betray and disrupt its master’s plans.

Apparently, so long as you "negotiate" carefully, 500 years of service for no reward that the demon resents and hates you for isn't "unreasonable." Are PCs incapable of negotiating carefully?

Up next is the example in the MMIV. It says nothing about the demon being compelled or if it was a negotiated contract so it literally is not evidence to support your stance or anyone else's.

This one is sparse, but the terms of the planar binding apparently don't include a provision that the lich doesn't kill the whisper demon on purpose. Apparently you can "negotiate" such that blowing the demon up for no reason other than intentional carelessness isn't unreasonable.

Finally the Bind Elemental feat. It uses a setting specific item with binding properties. This is an extraneous factor outside of the core rules fully within its right to modify the rules it relies upon.

No, it doesn't.

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

You can do what you want with the called creature if you negotiate for it or use a setting specific mechanical means to change what is unreasonable in one specific way.

The word negotiate is not in the Planar Binding spell description. The word compel is. Planar binding is not planar ally. Rewards are explicitly optional. FCII even contains a wizard that uses planar binding explicitly to enslave a pain devil. The creatures freedom is all it gets in return (eventually, if it survives) by default. The idea that planar binding can't be used to compel services from an outsider, which is explicitly what the spell is for and how it's used by NPCs, is just not supported.

The unreasonableness clause is only for commands. You can't tell your victim to do something it cannot reasonably achieve. Your terms can absolutely be unreasonable, because the entire spell is unreasonable.

[Crake]

Apparently, so long as you "negotiate" carefully, 500 years of service for no reward that the demon resents and hates you for isn't "unreasonable." Are PCs incapable of negotiating carefully?

This isnt an analogous example to binding an efreeti for wishes though.

Firstly, an efreeti who doesnt pervert wishes is at risk of being audited by the grand sultan, so that comes with its own issues (im not familiar with this lore, so i wont expand on it), but secondly, EVEN WITH a carefully negotiated contract, the demon is a) still doing this in line with its nature and b) it was STILL willing AND ABLE to betray its master where possible.

None of that suggests that you could compel an efreeti into perfectly interpreting your wishes and providing you with a favourable outcome, even if you COULD make a carefully negotiated contract

[Zanos]

This isnt an analogous example to binding an efreeti for wishes though.

It's not a direct analogy, I bring it up because it's a good example for how deeply unfair to outsider planar bindings are. There's a reason that the spell specifies that victims may take revenge or subvert instructions; because they don't like it.

Firstly, an efreeti who doesnt pervert wishes is at risk of being audited by the grand sultan, so that comes with its own issues (im not familiar with this lore, so i wont expand on it)

I've never heard of this, is that 2nd edition lore?

but secondly, EVEN WITH a carefully negotiated contract, the demon is a) still doing this in line with its nature and b) it was STILL willing AND ABLE to betray its master where possible.

Where possible = terms the contract doesn't cover. The demon is charged with torture, not being quiet in the presence of outsiders or guarding his masters lair, so he doesn't do those things.

None of that suggests that you could compel an efreeti into perfectly interpreting your wishes and providing you with a favourable outcome, even if you COULD make a carefully negotiated contract

Why not? People only make these arguments for Efreeti wishes; when someone wants to bind a 12 intelligence demon to go and murder someone for them there's not all this skullduggery of the demon pulling out its textbook knowledge of English(well, common I guess) and using the 4th, out of use, archaic definition of a word to reinterpret what you mean.

[Darg]

They are.

Apparently, so long as you "negotiate" carefully, 500 years of service for no reward that the demon resents and hates you for isn't "unreasonable." Are PCs incapable of negotiating carefully?

Reasonable doesn't mean pleasant. The text doesn't say that the balor isn't getting something out of it so you shouldn't just assume they aren't.

This one is sparse, but the terms of the planar binding apparently don't include a provision that the lich doesn't kill the whisper demon on purpose. Apparently you can "negotiate" such that blowing the demon up for no reason other than intentional carelessness isn't unreasonable.

You can compel mercenaries to perform a job by throwing cash at them and then blow them up in the middle of it too. The blowing them up part isn't part of the deal, it's extra.

The word negotiate is not in the Planar Binding spell description. The word compel is. Planar binding is not planar ally. Rewards are explicitly optional.

I never said rewards weren't optional. I only ever said unreasonable commands are never agreed to as the spell states. Obviously if the spell magically compels the creature to do something, why would you need a charisma check to get the creature to agree to something in the first place? An actual compulsion effect doesn't need a charisma check to compel an action. And if it were a compulsion, a protection from x spell would negate the effect. The word "compel" doesn't always have to have a magical connotation to it.

FCII even contains a wizard that uses planar binding explicitly to enslave a pain devil. The creatures freedom is all it gets in return (eventually, if it survives) by default. The idea that planar binding can't be used to compel services from an outsider, which is explicitly what the spell is for and how it's used by NPCs, is just not supported.

Why is it such an impossibility that the demon sells themselves into indentured servitude? Manually forcing a collar on someone isn't the only way to make a slave.

The unreasonableness clause is only for commands. You can't tell your victim to do something it cannot reasonably achieve. Your terms can absolutely be unreasonable, because the entire spell is unreasonable.

Do you really believe you can compel a creature to kill themselves as a service to you just because the spell doesn't disallow it according to your understanding? It wouldn't be an impossible demand, but it would be an unreasonable command. You're trying to use a specific understanding to negate the broader meanings of the text on the page.

[Troacctid]

A lot of gall to use an example from FCII to argue for a loose interpretation of reasonability, considering that FCII also says that asking an imp to do literally anything is an unreasonable request if you don't offer at least 150 gp or a human sacrifice in compensation.

[Zanos]

I think it takes a lot of gall to say that the rules are unclear while ignoring the examples that clarify those very rules, and saying that the examples don't say that the caster didn't [insert x] but hey. There's enough imp gall to go around.

[Crake]

Obviously if the spell magically compels the creature to do something, why would you need a charisma check to get the creature to agree to something in the first place? An actual compulsion effect doesn't need a charisma check to compel an action. And if it were a compulsion, a protection from x spell would negate the effect. The word "compel" doesn't always have to have a magical connotation to it.

Charisma isn't just about negotiating and convincing, it can also be about impressing your ego upon your target. Charm person's opposed cha check to make someone do something that they wouldn't ordinarily do for example, and there's the rule about when two compulsions give mutually exclusive orders, it's an opposed cha check between the two casters to see who comes out on top.

So the cha check isn't about convincing the outsider to do anything, it's about forcing your ego and will upon them to make them do something.

I think that the fact they literally cannot reneg on the deal is pretty indicative of this. They can subvert and undermine, but never outright go against the deal.

I've never heard of this, is that 2nd edition lore?

As I said, not familiar with the lore myself, other people brought it up earlier in the thread.

Where possible = terms the contract doesn't cover. The demon is charged with torture, not being quiet in the presence of outsiders or guarding his masters lair, so he doesn't do those things.

I dunno about the specifics, but I somehow doubt that the contract is written up in full for the players and DMs to know exactly where it can be exploited. Seems more to me like "where possible = where it's narratively interesting".

Why not? People only make these arguments for Efreeti wishes; when someone wants to bind a 12 intelligence demon to go and murder someone for them there's not all this skullduggery of the demon pulling out its textbook knowledge of English(well, common I guess) and using the 4th, out of use, archaic definition of a word to reinterpret what you mean.

That's probably because a 12 int demon probably is more than happy to spend some time on the material plane and murder said guy. And honestly, if your contract with the demon was simply "Go murder this guy", in my campaign, that would mean the demon would take all the time in the world on the material plane, probably murdering a bunch of unnecessary, innocent civilians in their pursuit, and call it "information gathering", so yeah, they'd be doing what you said, but also basking in the glory of wanton chaos and murder, and you'd be the one responsible.

So yeah, I dunno, if you asked me, I'd say the 12 int demon would be just as willing to subvert your orders in the pursuit of their own enjoyment.

[Samael Morgenst]

This isnt an analogous example to binding an efreeti for wishes though.

Firstly, an efreeti who doesnt pervert wishes is at risk of being audited by the grand sultan, so that comes with its own issues (im not familiar with this lore, so i wont expand on it), but secondly, EVEN WITH a carefully negotiated contract, the demon is a) still doing this in line with its nature and b) it was STILL willing AND ABLE to betray its master where possible.

None of that suggests that you could compel an efreeti into perfectly interpreting your wishes and providing you with a favourable outcome, even if you COULD make a carefully negotiated contract

If I may express my opinion, I don't find that argument very convincing.

A lot of gall to use an example from FCII to argue for a loose interpretation of reasonability, considering that FCII also says that asking an imp to do literally anything is an unreasonable request if you don't offer at least 150 gp or a human sacrifice in compensation.

What page/chapter?

[Darg]

Charisma isn't just about negotiating and convincing, it can also be about impressing your ego upon your target. Charm person's opposed cha check to make someone do something that they wouldn't ordinarily do for example, and there's the rule about when two compulsions give mutually exclusive orders, it's an opposed cha check between the two casters to see who comes out on top.

So the cha check isn't about convincing the outsider to do anything, it's about forcing your ego and will upon them to make them do something.

I think that the fact they literally cannot reneg on the deal is pretty indicative of this. They can subvert and undermine, but never outright go against the deal.

You are compelling them with the charisma checks, just not magically so, with the spell binding them to the service when agreed to. Different offers can be more or less compelling than others. The charisma check is there to facilitate the character's ability rather than the player's ability to be charismatic. My position is wholly on the fact that it's still just an attempt to compel the demon to agree to the service and that the spell has a failsafe for the DM to not allow wealth destroying exploitations. On top of that, the DMG allows the DM to provide circumstantial bonuses and penalties based on, well, the circumstances if they aren't wholly against the idea of the success.

[icefractal]

The fact that it's a raw charisma check rather than a skill check indicates to me that it doesn't just represent normal negotiation. Coming to a non-coercive agreement with a demon (or whoever) would be Diplomacy.

[Troacctid]

What page/chapter?

Page 30, "Devilish Bribes and Gifts".

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

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

[Darg]

The fact that it's a raw charisma check rather than a skill check indicates to me that it doesn't just represent normal negotiation. Coming to a non-coercive agreement with a demon (or whoever) would be Diplomacy.

Of course it isn't normal. You literally ripped them away from where they were, trapped them in a magic circle they can't escape from, and then are trying to get them to simply agree to a magically binding service agreement. The only leg the creature has to stand on is the fact that you want something from them. It's as much compulsion as it can get without it being a magical compulsion.

[icefractal]

But if you, say, traveled to the Abyss, incapacitated a demon, trapped it in a dimensionally locked cell, and then negotiated for a service in exchange for its freedom ...

That would be Diplomacy and/or Intimidate. Not a straight Charisma check. I think Planar Binding is a form of compulsion - though not the same form as Dominate Monster.


... huh, now that I think of it, should binding chaotic creatures like demons be inherently harder than lawful ones like devils? Since "follow this specific set of rules" is like daily life for a devil, but an unwanted imposition on a demon.

[Crake]

If I may express my opinion, I don't find that argument very convincing.

Usually you follow that up with reasoning and debate so the conversation can continue, otherwise all I can really respond to it with is "cool story bro"

just not magically so

with the spell binding them

Spells are literally magical by defintion. I have to assume that by "magically" you actually mean by enchantments, which I would agree with you on, it is not an enchantment compulsion.

[Darg]

But if you, say, traveled to the Abyss, incapacitated a demon, trapped it in a dimensionally locked cell, and then negotiated for a service in exchange for its freedom ...

That would be Diplomacy and/or Intimidate. Not a straight Charisma check. I think Planar Binding is a form of compulsion - though not the same form as Dominate Monster.

I don't think diplomacy or intimidate fits because you are essentially doing both at the same time. Compulsion was a concept before the creation of fantasy magic. Not hard to see how the concept applies in this situation honestly.

Spells are literally magical by defintion. I have to assume that by "magically" you actually mean by enchantments, which I would agree with you on, it is not an enchantment compulsion.

Two points. As I mentioned above you don't need magic to compel someone to do something. Second, if it were magical compulsion, not necessarily an enchantment, then the service part of the binding could be considered mental manipulation as well. With that, a simple protection from x spell would suppress the binding. Protection from x doesn't require it to be magical, just that it's an "effect"; which is generally caused by abilities or spells or powers, not plain skill/ability checks.

[icefractal]

So (unrelated to my last post) I've had some thoughts on this.

First, I'll acknowledge that anyone saying "the best answer is to play the GM rather than the rules here" is correct. I'm not going to take that route though, because it's table-specific to the point that there's not much common ground for discussion. And honestly, as a GM? I want the players to take action independent of me when it's possible to - between four players plus my own ideas, there's enough stuff that I need to handle personally / make rulings on that there's barely enough time for it. I've got no idea why any GM would want to add more to that.

Second, it occurs to me that the real secret sauce for not getting screwed is two words: Sense Motive.

Demons and genies and such can be very tricksy with their wordings and deals. And while you could try to anticipate every loophole, it's an uphill struggle at best and impossible at worst (if bad faith interpretations are on the table). But you know who knows whether they're going to screw you over, and how? The genie. And neither genies or demons are infinitely good at lying. So just be better at seeing through those lies.

Sense Motive alone doesn't give you leverage, but it makes sure your leverage isn't secretly worthless.

[Samael Morgenst]

DEVILISH BRIBES AND GIFTS
A spellcaster who calls a devil using a planar binding spell must
negotiate terms for its service, offering gifts and sacrifices to
secure the desired assistance. In most cases, the negotiations
are lengthy, involving several offers and counteroffers before an
agreement is reached.
The table below details the Charisma check modifiers for a
number of sample bribes and gifts, as well as the complexity of
the task required, the length of service, and the circumstances
of casting. You must offer enough gifts and bribes to bring the
modifier back to +0 or higher, or your Charisma check automatically fails.
Negotiations with Devils
Offer or Condition Charisma Check Modifier
Length of Service
Up to 1 round per caster level –1
Up to 1 minute per caster level –2
Up to 1 hour per caster level –4
Up to 1 day per caster level –8
Task Complexity
Simple (for example, retrieve an unguarded object) +0
Difficult (retrieve a guarded object protected
by wards) –2
Very difficult (retrieve a heavily guarded object
protected by powerful wards) –4
Impossible (pluck a hair from St. Cuthbert’s head) –8
Casting Circumstances (Cumulative)
Spell cast before more than ten followers +1
Spell cast before more than one hundred followers +1
Spell cast in a desecrated area +1
Spell cast in an unhallowed area +2
Wealth Offerings
50 gp per HD in coins, goods, or magic items +1
51–100 gp per HD in coins, goods, or magic items +2
101–500 gp per HD in coins, goods, or magic items +4
501–1,000 gp per HD in coins, goods, or magic items +8
Sacrifi ce (Cumulative)
Sacrifice is tortured +1
Sacrifi ce is good-aligned +1
Sacrifice has the good subtype +1
Sacrifi ce has 1–5 HD +1
Sacrifice has 6–10 HD +2
Sacrifi ce has 11–15 HD +3
Sacrifice has 16 or more HD +4
Sacrifice is a cleric of another god, demon lord,
or archdevil +2
Sacrifice is willing but controlled +1
Sacrifi ce is genuinely willing +3
Caster offers soul +8
For example, Edgar, a 9th-level wizard, casts lesser planar binding to
call a bearded devil. The service he demands will require 8 hours,
imposing a –4 penalty on his Charisma check. Thus, Edgar must
offset this penalty before the negotiations can even begin. The
highest wealth offering he can make is 3,000 gp in assorted coins
and goods. Since the devil has 6 HD, Edgar gains a +4 bonus,
bringing the modifier on his Charisma check back up to +0.

Can multiple sacrifices be offered?
For example a dozen goblins, an hundred captives or so?

And...
so, asking a Glabrezu for a Wish would be at worst a -8 request?

[Darg]

Can multiple sacrifices be offered?
For example a dozen goblins, an hundred captives or so?

And...
so, asking a Glabrezu for a Wish would be at worst a -8 request?

I'm pretty sure it just means that the categories are cumulative with each other, not that the bonuses are cumulative from each source. But hey, sacrificing villages and/or a group of virgins is a trope. I got nothing against it.

[Crake]

Two points. As I mentioned above you don't need magic to compel someone to do something. Second, if it were magical compulsion, not necessarily an enchantment, then the service part of the binding could be considered mental manipulation as well.

My point was that it was a compulsion in the standard defintion of the word, but not a [Compulsion], ergo not mind affecting. They are being cosmically forced to adhere to the agreement due to their nature as an outsider/elemental. There's a reason why you can only use planar binding on outsiders and elementals after all, because they are cosmic beings subject to these laws of magic. Pact magic like this does not apply to mortals or other normal creatures.

Not every word used in a discussion needs to be a tag or a key-word.

Can multiple sacrifices be offered?
For example a dozen goblins, an hundred captives or so?

And...
so, asking a Glabrezu for a Wish would be at worst a -8 request?

Glabrezu are demons, not devils, they don't play by the FC2 rules, both mechanically and diagetically.

[rel]

The set of rules from FCII have no modifiers for intimidating the outsider which strikes me as odd.
I'd be reluctant to use them as a GM, since they prevent interesting scenarios like the wizard binding 3 Efreeti in a row and asking each in turn for an unfavorable deal then casually killing them off when they refuse until one of them, probably the last, sees the writing on the wall and takes the ****ty deal.

With that sort of thing off the table, the PC's are encouraged to go for more reliable boring strategies like beating a single bound outsider unconscious and spamming mind control until something sticks.

[Jack_Simth]

Reasonable doesn't mean pleasant. The text doesn't say that the balor isn't getting something out of it so you shouldn't just assume they aren't.

It also doesn't say exactly how it came about.

Suppose a Wizard binds Balor A.

Balor A is a big boss balor, whom the Wizard carefully researched and verified as such. Balor A has many other Balors under his command, and he really, really doesn't want to stick around on the prime material for a while; he has work to do.

Binder negotiates with Balor A for the services of one of A's underlings, Balor B. Balor B is a Balor that is under command of Balor A, and hasn't been doing great recently; Balor A sees this as a wonderful opportunity to get B out of his hair for a while, and get him on punishment detail at the same time, AND drop a tiny little clause in B's orders to kill this pesky mortal once that 500 years is up (it's not particularly relevant whether or not the mortal is expected to live until then, A orders B to just kill him after the 500 years is up).

You have a carefully negotiated contract via GPB. You have 500 years of service of an outsider via said binding and negotiation. You also have something that is very setting dependent, that the DM pretty much needs to allow to work... which is fine for NPCs. And a reason why this really isn't a good idea (which is also fine for NPCs).

[Crake]

The set of rules from FCII have no modifiers for intimidating the outsider which strikes me as odd.
I'd be reluctant to use them as a GM, since they prevent interesting scenarios like the wizard binding 3 Efreeti in a row and asking each in turn for an unfavorable deal then casually killing them off when they refuse until one of them, probably the last, sees the writing on the wall and takes the ****ty deal.

With that sort of thing off the table, the PC's are encouraged to go for more reliable boring strategies like beating a single bound outsider unconscious and spamming mind control until something sticks.

Efreeti are also not devils, same as glabrezu, so the fc2 rules do not apply

[Darg]

Efreeti are also not devils, same as glabrezu, so the fc2 rules do not apply

But they do establish that for players that planar binding wasn't meant to be simply a free enterprise, nor last longer than 1 day per caster level.

[Troacctid]

Yeah, the point is that if you're going to go diving for examples of how binding should work and what deals should be possible, then that's a game that absolutely does not favor the "You can just ask them to do whatever you want and not pay them" interpretation, because there are hard and fast rules directly contradicting that.

It doesn't put much of a dent in the "I'll just use the spell to bring them here and then coerce them by other means" plan, though, I guess.

[rel]

The set of rules from FCII have no modifiers for intimidating the outsider which strikes me as odd.
I'd be reluctant to use them as a GM, since they prevent interesting scenarios like the wizard binding 3 Efreeti in a row and asking each in turn for an unfavorable deal then casually killing them off when they refuse until one of them, probably the last, sees the writing on the wall and takes the ****ty deal.

With that sort of thing off the table, the PC's are encouraged to go for more reliable boring strategies like beating a single bound outsider unconscious and spamming mind control until something sticks.

Efreeti are also not devils, same as glabrezu, so the fc2 rules do not apply

Sure, but that's not really the point.

Those expanded rules seem to encourage the PC's to engage in the safe boring play of using planar binding to only call in and trap outsiders and then gain control of them using other more reliable methods of mind control.
Since I'd rather see the PC's taking risks, gambling on getting a really good faustian deal, and potentially getting up to some interesting mischief along the way, I probably wouldn't use them at my table.

[Crake]

But they do establish that for players that planar binding wasn't meant to be simply a free enterprise, nor last longer than 1 day per caster level.

No, it establishes this for devils, and devils alone. Remember, devils have a very strict society, and one devil not playing by the rules affects expectations for all devils, so it would be fair to call anything outside of their rule structure an “unreasonable request”.

Other creatures dont live by those same rigid structures, and so those rules do not apply.

[Darg]

Sure, but that's not really the point.

Those expanded rules seem to encourage the PC's to engage in the safe boring play of using planar binding to only call in and trap outsiders and then gain control of them using other more reliable methods of mind control.
Since I'd rather see the PC's taking risks, gambling on getting a really good faustian deal, and potentially getting up to some interesting mischief along the way, I probably wouldn't use them at my table.

A charisma check is not a saving throw. Mechanically speaking, they can't choose to fail the check nor ignore the failsafes built into the spell. Charm or dominate don't say anything to counter that. So even threatening them doesn't technically change how the spell works either.

No, it establishes this for devils, and devils alone. Remember, devils have a very strict society, and one devil not playing by the rules affects expectations for all devils, so it would be fair to call anything outside of their rule structure an “unreasonable request”.

Other creatures dont live by those same rigid structures, and so those rules do not apply.

We could agree to disagree and realize this is a divisive topic and that no one can just rely on a singular method to work. Which was the whole point of the argument in the first place. Planar binding is only as reliable or permissive as your DM.

[Crake]

We could agree to disagree and realize this is a divisive topic and that no one can just rely on a singular method to work. Which was the whole point of the argument in the first place. Planar binding is only as reliable or permissive as your DM.

I mean, that remains my point. By trying to indicate that the fc2 rules apply, you actually push towards a more raw centric rather than dm adjudicated outcome.

Imo, thats fine for the highly rigid and predictable devils, but not anything beyond that. Every other circumstance is unique and will happen as dictated by the individual scenario and how the players act in that given environment.

[Samael Morgenst]

And for an haf-devil Efreeti?

[Crake]

And for an haf-devil Efreeti?

Not appliccable, half fiend, even if from a devil, doesnt grant the baatezu subtype, which is what defines a creature as a devil.

Efreeti of any sort have their own heirarchy, they dont follow hell’s rules