Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Paladin's Pride 06-26-05, 04:46 PM	The wording of planar binding indicates that unlike the cleric's planar ally spell, the relationship between the summoned creature and the summoner is that of intense hostility. My question is, must this be so? Admittedly, being yanked from your home plane to talk to some wizard you've never met before isn't exactly the best way to initiate a friendly partnership, but other than starting off on a bad note, could diplomacy be used to gain a willing ally via the use of this spell? In the current campaign I am playing in, the party has a tendency to lose our horses continually. The poor beasts can't really defend themselves, and tend to be killed whenever we have to leave them alone to enter a dungeon or sleep in a rope trick. There are easy solutions to this problem, hire someone to watch our horses outside of a dungeon, don't sleep in rope tricks...etc, etc. However, my character is a wizard, and did not spend years learning to manipulate the mystic forces of the universe so he could end up settling for practical, reasonable, common-sense solutions such as these. I've decided I'd like to call an extraplanar creature to act as my new mount, specifically, an axiomatic griffon (I'm LN). Why not just buy a griffon? They are expensive, it's not as cool, and again, unnecessary use of magic is the wizard way. Assuming I can convince the DM's to let the spell call extraplanar creatures other than outsiders and elementals, can I then attempt to negotiate with the creature some reasonable mutually beneficial agreement under which he will agree to become my mount for an extended period of time (say 3 years). By the strict reading of the spell, the best I can do is get a +6 bonus to the charisma check, gain the griffons service for my caster level in days (which is not enough time to train it), and then have it return to its home plane, possibly wishing to seek revenge. However, as long as the conjured creature is not forced to accept the offer, but instead does so because it believes it fair, I see no reason it should be hostile. How would you rule this situation? (By the way, my leadership score is lousy, so I'll never manage to get one as a cohort using leadership feat)
Jaid 06-26-05, 06:14 PM	well, for one thing, you could just *repeatedly* call it using planar binding =P so that might help some ;) but anyways, here's what you seemed to be referring to: 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. now, a careful reading will indicate that the time limitation is only in effect if you assign the creature an open-ended task which it cannot complete by it's own actions. for example, if you told the axiomatic griffon to "guard my tower" then it would only be bound to guard your tower for 1 day/level. however, if you told it "guard my tower for 1 year" then it would last 1 year. now then, i would tend to assume that if the creature was swayed by your offering of payment, then the creature might very well not resent you (especially if it's a nice gift). if it is treated well, and well paid for it's efforts, i think it would be fine with the deal. for the record, however, "treated well" means different things to different creatures. for example, for a chaotic being, treated well may mean only having to obey you for a short time. to a good creature, it would mean you don't put them in excessive danger (unless it's to combat evil and they have at least some chance of winning), and not having to do anything evil. and so on.
runestar 06-26-05, 11:04 PM	I guess its all about first impressions. If I were yanked from my house and forced to do someone's bidding, reward be damned, I certainly wouldn't be in the best of moods. Diplomacy could be possible, but it would involve a massive check penalty to simply placate him. And anyway, the idea of the spell is that: you use magic to bind a creature to your will, against his will. Perhaps that is why Elminster disdains conjuration spells so, given his outlook on morality and freedom of choice.
Vanigo 06-27-05, 11:53 PM	however, if you told it "guard my tower for 1 year" then it would last 1 year. I disagree. It can't make one year pass through its own actions; therefore it's limited to one day/level. However, if you told it to "shift this pile of sand from here over to there one grain at a time using only these tweezers and guard my tower in the meantime", that'd work fine.
Jaid 06-28-05, 12:25 PM	it can't bring 1 year to pass, but it can bring to pass "guarding the tower for 1 year" so, you couldn't say, "guard my tower until you have caused one year to pass", because you are quite right, the creature cannot bring one year to pass. however, the creature is fully capable of bringing to pass, by it's own actions, the guarding of the tower for one year.
Bloodtide_the_Red 06-28-05, 01:11 PM	I've always seen this as a very, very short term spell. You conjure up the creature, have to do something, and it goes home. I've always used the one day a level maximum as the spells duration. You tell it to 'guard the tower' and it will, for 1 day a level, then be gone. The spell is more for closed ended tasks, 'find x and bring it back to me', or 'kill thoes orcs'. This just is not a long term mount spell. Except...... The Individual Monster Summoning Variant. This(in the DMG) lets you summon up a named individual monster. That way you can summon the same one time after time and it will know you. This also let you train the creature, of course. This lets you have a creature with personality and a history and all. Also, I'm of the mind that there are creatures of all types that WANT to come to the Prime. Plenty of LN folks would love to come and spread some good around. You could even say there is a 'draft', as that works out well for Lawful folks. Of course, even the willing ones only want to come for thier own reasons...but as long as your reasons are close. BT
tiercel 06-28-05, 09:03 PM	it can't bring 1 year to pass, but it can bring to pass "guarding the tower for 1 year" so, you couldn't say, "guard my tower until you have caused one year to pass", because you are quite right, the creature cannot bring one year to pass. however, the creature is fully capable of bringing to pass, by it's own actions, the guarding of the tower for one year. Let me see if I understand this argument. Instruction: "Guard my tower." Outcome: Creature gets immediate chance to break free, if failed, must guard tower for 1 day/level. Instruction: "Guard my tower until the inevitable and complete destruction of all existence." Outcome: Creature gets no chance to break free, and must guard tower until Ragnarok. ---------- If a player tried the second course on me, he would be doing well for me to simply call bovine excrement on such a tactic and resolve it as in the first case. By your definition there is no such thing as an open-ended task, since any task can be made into a closed task that "can be completed through its own actions" by reasonably demanding merely that it be continued until the end of existence. :uh-huh: Putting a time requirement on a task doesn't change it from open-ended to closed. In both cases above, the requirement is "guard my tower." A real closed request would be "find and retrieve the one true Sword of Kas as described here (supply description) as soon as possible, returning it to me peaceably." (Yes, I'd be more careful than that even, but this is an illustration.) Since "finding and returning the Sword of Kas" is something that the critter can finish, it is freed as soon as it does, whether it takes it 5 minutes or 5000 years.
Jaid 06-28-05, 09:42 PM	only if there is an inevitable and complete distruction of all existence. since there probably isn't, no, you couldn't.
Vanigo 06-28-05, 11:19 PM	A meaningless technicality. "Guard my tower until the mountain it stands on is ground to dust by the wind", then.
Jaid 06-29-05, 01:54 PM	hmmm... yes, that probably could work. although i would expect that some people who come along and find out the situation of the creature will be rather upset. for example, good aligned druids and rangers who find out would probably do their best to free the creature. furthermore, if you *really* want to make the creature take every effort to bend the meaning of your command, then that's the way to go. for example, as soon as some of the mountain has been ground to dust, the creature is free to go =P kinda like 2e wish. if you try to mess with the system too much, the system will mess with you =D