Planar Binding is SLAVERY

[RoboEmperor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

[flappeercraft]

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

[RoboEmperor]

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

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

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

[Fizban]

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

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

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

[RoboEmperor]

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

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

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

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

[Minion #6]

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

[Tvtyrant]

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


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

[RoboEmperor]

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

Couldn't agree more.

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


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

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

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

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

[ManicOppressive]

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

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

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

[RoboEmperor]

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

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

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

[Psyren]

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

Spoiler

Show

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

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

[Rhedyn]

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

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

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

[RoboEmperor]

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

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

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

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

Spoiler

Show

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ezekielraiden]

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

[magicalmagicman]

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

Spoiler

Show

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

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

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

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

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

[zergling.exe]

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

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

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

[Deadline]

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

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

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

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

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

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

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

[RoboEmperor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[magicalmagicman]

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

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

I stand corrected. I will amend my statement.

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

[ericgrau]

shove this post in his face and tell him he is wrong.

You shouldn't do this to your DM regardless.

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

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

[Particle_Man]

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

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

[ExLibrisMortis]

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

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


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

[ericgrau]

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

[RoboEmperor]

You shouldn't do this to your DM regardless.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

[ezekielraiden]

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

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

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