I want to make a planar binding caster. any advice?


Advice

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I imagine sorcerer is a good choice due to the charisma based casting. Is there any way to get past the hd limit? Prcs and whatnot?


Check out this prestige class: Genie Binder.

Addendum: It doesn't get around the HD limit (and I don't know a way to do that, either), but it fits thematically.


Ishpumalibu wrote:
I imagine sorcerer is a good choice due to the charisma based casting. Is there any way to get past the hd limit? Prcs and whatnot?

1.) Don't worry about the HD limit, it's there for a reason, and planar binding is incredibly useful anyway.

EDIT: Anyway, if you want to deal with even higher level creatures, gate is the spell for you. It's a calling spell and creatures must obey you if they have equal or less HD as you have caster levels. There are plenty of effects that can get your caster level higher (such as traits, ioun stones, etc). Don't summon anything higher than your caster level and you're golden. Otherwise, be prepared to pay out the nose and do some serious negotiating to get some help from the creature if it isn't in its nature to help you (getting a celestial being to help you fight evil might be easy and cost nothing, and getting a solar to destroy a city for your amusement will likely result in you needing a greater resurrection very soon).

2.) You need a GM who is comfortable with this sort of thing and isn't going to try and make a sucky game of mother-may-I out of it. Planar binding is one of those things that GMs tend to try and screw players over with all the time.
3.) As far as prestige classes go...

The Diabolist is amazing for this sort of thing if you want to deal with fiends. Admittedly it's only with devils, but the sheer power they have at coercing them to do anything is incredible. They get full spellcasting, an Imp companion, a nice selection of skills, teleportation abilities, and most importantly absolutely goofy modifiers to dealing with devils. You get a +6 on all Charisma checks to coerce the fiend into doing something, and you can research the devil's true name to allow you to eventually cast planar binding spells as a standard action and get 1/2 your Bluff, Intimidate, or Diplomacy modifier to the Charisma check to make them do stuff (which is essentially an auto-succeed unless you roll a 1). The prestige class could be easily modified by your group to focus on summoning other sorts of creatures (for example, you could convert it from a diabolist to a demonologist really easily).

Other prestige classes like the Genie Binder are nice if you like wishes (efreeti can grant wishes to non-djinn at no cost to themselves) for your party (the usefulness of these wishes is severely limited unless you have the djinn hanging out with you to actually replicate spells, otherwise it's just a source of downtime spellcasting for mostly RP purposes and an easy way to get decent stats across the board).

Definitely pick up a Circlet of Persuasion to push your Charisma checks even further.


Thanks, not bad. I was hoping for something more devil/Angel binding.


Oh yeah, I second the Diabolist, too, but you're gonna get labled "evil" for bargaining with devils, even if you might not be.

If you want angelic, you might enjoy the 3rd party summoner archetype Celestial Commander.
Or maybe just take an evolutionist summoner and fluff out your eidolon as an angelic or demonic/devilish being, switching between those as you see fit. :)

You could also be an aasimar, take the shiny (and I do mean shiny, there's a trait that gives you a halo) stuff from the Advanced Race Guide.


Ishpumalibu wrote:
Thanks, not bad. I was hoping for something more devil/Angel binding.

I'm fond of calling celestial creatures as well, and making a good-aligned outsider version of the diabolist would be pretty cool. Maybe instead of getting an Imp you could get a lantern archon or those cassian angels or something.

If you decide to go with the diabolist, you might like erinyes. You get a +2 modifier on Charisma checks when calling them if you give them a holy symbol worth 100 gp (I think giving them a living cleric is a bit extreme and wouldn't recommend it :P).

If your group would like to see slightly more variations in what sorts of fiends you summon over your levels, you might consider checking with your GM and seeing if you are allowed to call advanced versions of different sorts of outsiders. For example, greater planar binding allows you to call a creature up to 18 HD, which might mean that you could scour the multiverse for an 18 HD succubus or erinyes (advanced in HD as appropriate), being essentially greater versions of the lesser ones. Mechanically they aren't stronger than anything else you could have called, but it gives more variety to the types of creatures you might call and keeps their statistics more in line with the party's (an erinyes with 18 HD has higher HP, BAB, caster level, saving throws, and so forth).


Cool ashiel thanks for the ideas.


Ishpumalibu wrote:
Cool ashiel thanks for the ideas.

You are very welcome. Also, remember that if you want to foster good karma between you and your called outsiders, don't treat them like summoned monsters. Called creatures are not like summoned creatures. A summoned creature is like an avatar of the real thing. It's a fake creature. It cannot actually die and vanishes from spell-resistance. Summoned monsters are cannon fodder. Called creatures are the actual creature. They do die when they are killed instead of just a magical avatar vanishing (and consequently are immune to most anti-summoning effects and won't vanish due to SR/immunity). Respect your outsiders. Remember that outsiders do not enjoy such easy resurrections as mortals (stuff like raise dead and such will not work on them), so unless they have a very powerful ally to bring them back via true resurrection or miracle then they are screwed. So treat your called creatures well.

However, some callers actually revel in the fact that their called creatures do die. In fact, a whole prestige class in the Complete Scoundrel (3.5 book) called the Malconvoker was dedicated to allowing good-aligned characters to summon and bind fiends (even allowing divine casters like clerics the ability to select evil creatures as part of summoning and calling spells). The whole point of the class was based on turning evil against itself to make it destroy itself. For example, calling a marilith and not only forcing it to serve the will of good but pitting it against other fiends. No matter if your called creature or the other evil creature is destroyed, it's a net gain for non-evil since some fiend just snuffed it.

However, when dealing with evil outsiders, I prefer to command respect and then treat them with respect. The idea is basically creating a sort of patterned loyalty, and in some cases inducing Stockholm-syndrome. During one game, I had a tiefling conjurer who bound a succubus, determined her true name, and called the succubus repeatedly. After a certain point the succubus developed a sort of twisted loyalty to her new master, because her master was clearly the shiznay, and also treated her in a good sort of way (after the initial domination, she let the succubus have certain measures of limited freedom, awarded her for jobs well done, and made her feel more like a privileged servant rather than a slave).

With good outsiders, there is often less of a need to demonstrate superiority. Most good outsiders aren't going to consider screwing with you if you're not acting like a douche, and aren't asking them to do bad things. Calling up a Ghaele Azata and asking them to travel with you and heal your party on their quest against the evil necromancer lord who has been besetting the region with his army of undead and evil servitors? The ghaele will likely jump at the chance and might even join in a battle or two without even being asked (instead of just healing your party for free).


Also, there's a lot of commentary about summoned good/evil outsiders, but it's worth remembering that there are tons of other outsiders which can be very useful to have around, and are often even easier to bind than the champions of good/evil. For example, Elementals are classically wonderful brutes who have poor to mediocre Charisma modifiers. This makes them perfect for the up and coming binder to use as minions regularly. They also have little to no method to plot against you in a great capacity (some GMs act as though calling any demon means incurring the wrath of the entire abyss, as silly as that sounds). Most of them make for good tanks and front-liners.

For example, an Elder Fire Elemental is 16 HD baseline, which is well within the limits of planar binding limits. It has a fair amount of HP, a fair unbuffed AC, DR 10/-, great speed, and is quite enormous (huge with a 15 ft. reach) and immunity to fire (which means you can happily have a menagerie of elder fire elementals running interference while your party bombs enemies with fire spells like firestorm). They have pretty nice attacks that deal decent amounts of damage, and having a group of elementals (particularly fire elementals since they have spring attack + burn) make great targets for haste spells (that makes each fire elemental's attack routine +24/+24/+24 at 2d8+8+2d10).

There are even different flavors. Along with fire, there are Ice Elementals, Lightning Elementals, Magma Elementals, Mud Elementals (entrap is cool), Negative Energy Elementals (these guys are AWESOME, see below!).

Negative energy elementals are particularly awesome because most creatures, even outsiders (with all their immunities) are vulnerable to their energy attacks. In addition, they deal 3 negative levels with every hit from their slam attacks (6 on a critical hit), which means a group of hasted elementals can quickly dismantle even the strongest of enemies (3 attacks per round means potentially 9 negative levels).

Also, don't forget that it's any outsider. You can also call things like half-fiend variants of other monsters, Inevitables, Proteans, Rakshasa, and so on and so forth. There are lots of things you can bind. Truly, with a good binder and a good GM, binding creatures can be a very fun and rewarding experience.


I definitely hear you on the not pushing it with them, at the same time it might be kind of fun to make a new powerful enemy as far as side plot and rp, then maybe I could learn after he tries to get revenge.


Ishpumalibu wrote:
I definitely hear you on the not pushing it with them, at the same time it might be kind of fun to make a new powerful enemy as far as side plot and rp, then maybe I could learn after he tries to get revenge.

That's possible. Just be careful what you wish for. Some of the fiends that are useful and fairly easy to bind, such as succubi (who in 3.5 could be bound with lesser planar binding but are a little stronger in PF, but can still be gotten with planar binding easily enough). Bound outsiders can return to their world once their task is completed or their time is up (for open ended tasks), but last I checked they are not required to return to their home plane.

Creatures such as succubi, erinyes, and most outsiders with teleportation, shapechanging, or mind-controlling abilities can quickly become a thorn in your side in very indirect ways. For example, if a succubi gets loose, then you might end up with a terrible reputation, with bounty hunters looking for someone who meets your description. Or the succubi might charm important NPCs, pose as harmless NPCs, or otherwise orchestrate your downfall. I gave an example as to how a succubus deals with enemies who are stronger than themselves in this post. I've copy/pasted an example below, for the convenience of readers.

Ashiel - On Succubi Revenge wrote:

Loosely related to the succubi using charms in wicked ways, you must think about how a succubus is going to truly hurt you if you get in her way. Will she come after you directly? No. Probably not. More subtle. More sadistic. Like a venom pumped slowly. She'll target your hopes, and your dreams. If you piss off someone and you discover she's a demonic succubus, then by god the first thing you do is not chase after her. You go home, and you begin worrying about your family. You go into super-hero mode. Conceal your identity, and cover your house with wards to hedge out evil. You trap the bat cave with magic traps that summon angelic protectors for your family, or punish evil that steps foot in your abode. You do what you can to ensure your family members are protected from evil, even if you have to commission blessed rings from the local temple.

It's not you that the succubus is coming after. It's your family. It's your job. It's your peers. It's your reputation. She will not risk the edge of your blade, but may frame you for crimes, control witnesses, make long time friends into enemies, break up your relationships, and haunt your ever waking moment with the fear that she may still be around watching you. Is she the old man on the corner selling hotdogs? Is she that sweet girl you met on the bus yesterday? Is she responsible for you not getting that promotion? Is she why your daughter is having night terrors?

Then find an exorcist...

She might even be inhumanly patient about her vengeance. Maybe she leaves you alone for years. Your concern wanes. She has forgotten about you. You are safe. Your family is safe. Until fifteen years later, when your daughter meets a handsome young man. He's a nice guy, and goes to the same temple as you. He's a very eligible bachelor with money, a winning smile, and a good sense of humor. Your daughter is the happiest that she has ever been. Things are looking up!

Little did you know that he began dating your daughter because that trustworthy voice in his head told him to, or that the romance, right up to the marriage has been the succubus slowly working her revenge to its fruition. You give away your daughter on her wedding day, delivering her into the hands of the very succubus you fought fifteen years ago. During the wedding night, her husband takes off that ring of protection from evil you told her to never take off by sucking on her fingers playfully. Now she has her...

But what does she do with her? Does she send her after you? No. The husband has lost his usefulness. Kill him the voice whispers. So her husband's wedding night is his last. He made you take off daddy's ring, but you're sure that you don't need it anymore. You cast it into the garden, along with with the dagger. You can't remember why, but he deserved to die and it was a good idea to kill him. The police come, and take you away in chains. The town talks about the night when the old hero's daughter stabbed her new husband twelve times. Resist them! the voice in your head cries out, and you fight with the police, kicking and screaming like a mad woman until they throw you in a cart. Your father comes by, but the police won't let him approach the coach, no matter if he is a local hero. You look out at him and he sees your blood stained hands upon the bars, and sees that the ring he gave you is not there. His face turns pale...

He knows...

As a GM, I'm not salivating at the mouth to try and screw you over for using spells like planar binding as intended, but if you're asking for it, then you'll get it. Binding a servant to your will is entirely possible, but it's also entirely possible to have your servant wrenched from your control and given the freedom to reciprocate the cruelties that you bestowed upon them.

For example, in another thread, I noted that an evil spellcaster might take great glee in forcing celestial beings into contracts of servitude, and then making them assist him in carrying out their evil duties. However, if a party of adventurers were to capture the bound creature and hold them until the duration of the binding wore off (1 day per caster level for open-ended servitude) then not only would the evil wizard lose his minion, but the PCs would gain a powerful ally who now wants retribution against the evil wizard (and will likely get it).


Also keep in mind greater planar beings of good seeing an evil wizard forcing their brethren into servitude might cause some heavy smiting of either the wizard or even the bound creature, as to prevent them from doing evil.


Matthias wrote:
Also keep in mind greater planar beings of good seeing an evil wizard forcing their brethren into servitude might cause some heavy smiting of either the wizard or even the bound creature, as to prevent them from doing evil.

Personally I think assuming that the hosts of heaven are going to try to smite every evil wizard who binds a good outsider is akin to saying that the host of heaven is going to invade the world and get rid of evil. If they were going to do it, why haven't they already done so?

Everything grows very boring when you don't need heroes...


That's why you bind evil outsiders without natural planeshifting abilities. They can't seek retribution on their own because they can't reach you and hierarchy (in both demons and devils. Daemons may still be an issue though.) prevents them from getting assistance from someone who can.

Alternately, you can bind outsiders with a purpose aligned to your objective. Being made of alignment means they will likely be willing to help you.


Ashiel wrote:
Matthias wrote:
Also keep in mind greater planar beings of good seeing an evil wizard forcing their brethren into servitude might cause some heavy smiting of either the wizard or even the bound creature, as to prevent them from doing evil.

Personally I think assuming that the hosts of heaven are going to try to smite every evil wizard who binds a good outsider is akin to saying that the host of heaven is going to invade the world and get rid of evil. If they were going to do it, why haven't they already done so?

Everything grows very boring when you don't need heroes...

If the wizard actively targets good outsiders that changes the game, you force them to defend themselves which likely means smiting your socks off in this case, good outsiders will tend to be more loyal and protective of their kindred than evil outsiders.

Even evil outsiders might get displeased if you call one of their greater demon servants and send her to her death, while there is always a demon to replace her it likely will be perceived as an indirect threat, inconvenience, insult or personal attack on a greater demon when you mess with it's more powerful, prefered minions. Succubi might not be powerful as such but they tend to be well connected and might be able to persuade much more powerful demons to act on her behalf. A demon who's name you know might take steps to make sure the knowledge does not spread.


deuxhero wrote:

That's why you bind evil outsiders without natural planeshifting abilities. They can't seek retribution on their own because they can't reach you and hierarchy (in both demons and devils. Daemons may still be an issue though.) prevents them from getting assistance from someone who can.

Alternately, you can bind outsiders with a purpose aligned to your objective. Being made of alignment means they will likely be willing to help you.

That should be the standard I suppose, something like calling a good outsider to lay waste to a random city strikes me as strange, some things should not be doable without magical compulsion imo.


Um, magical compulsion? It's planar binding. Ever read about King Solomon and his Seal? The whole reason summoning and binding outsiders to your will exists in fantasy is because of the stories of King Solomon binding Demons and forcing them to do stuff like build the Temple of Jerusalem. The demons were not happy with him though, and said that they would torment his people for centuries to come. If an outsider fails the opposed Charisma check, they have to do what you ask of them. It's not a matter of popping an outsider into your circle and then using Diplomacy to make them agree (which you totally can if you want them to agree completely of their own free will), it's binding them to your will.

There's an entire prestige class in the Complete Scoundrel (the Malconvoker) that is based around this concept. It is a prestige class for good and neutral characters, which is built around summoning and calling Evil creatures and making them fight evil and work for good, because you make them do so.

Why would an evil spellcaster do this to a good outsider? Because he's freakin' evil. What sort of twisted pleasure would the Joker get if he could force ol' Bats or Robin to do what he wanted, because he could? I'm not sure if you've ever met people who are up to no good, but many of them really seem to like it when other people are up to no good, and like it when people that are better than them are brought down to their level.

As for the planar swat team who apparently exists to rescue every bound outsider, the same argument could be made regardless of alignment. One could just as easily say devils don't like you messing with their order, and mafia hit you. Demons don't like you messing with their slaves, and mafia hit you. Any powerful outsider might not like you binding at all, since it means you might be able to summon them one day (sure it's just 6 HD demons now, but later it'll be 12, 18, and then 20+; best nip it in the bud).

I think it's a bit harder than that, or should be. Most outsiders cannot easily move across plane to plane, and most of the ones that can generally have better things to do (leading celestial, infernal, or abyssal armies, etc). One of the biggest problems with outsiders that can plane shift to the material plane is it forces you to wonder why we need adventurers at all. I mean if we have angels who planeshift to the material to take out every evil wizard who bound a celestial, why don't these super beings just wipe out evil wizards while they're here? I mean, in settings where the majority of people are 12th level or lower, a single Solar (and possibly a Ghaele Azata) could purge the whole world if they wanted to; as could a single Balor or Pit Fiend.

Of course, I'm a sucker for a good story, and I think that the primary way to actually fight CR-equivalent outsiders on the material will generally involve bound creatures. It is also a great method of giving a party a chance to fight unusual enemies without necessarily being evil (and possibly allowing a party to rescue their unwilling enemy from the clutches of an evil wizard and make a friend). So I'm not really into any situation where the hosts of heaven, hell, and the abyss will just take care of everything.


Myth in the bible or otherwise isn't D&D/PF, if you read enough stories you will notice that 'demon' is used rather liberally and doesn't exactly mean the same thing as it does in D&D. Any extra planar entity that is not either the 'One true god' or serve god directly is called a demon.
Evil and good are not mirror opposites of eachother either, having a demon aid you might be repulsive to such a creature but it doesn't usually care one way or another if it gets rewarded well enough, a good creature is different because it has morals.

The malconvoker is a very exact exception to the rule it more or less proves the opposite point since that class actually relates alignment type spells to acts of that alignment. I think the entire class would be much more interesting for an evil character, good intentions paving the road to hell and such.. all in all a weird prestige class to even exist for good aligned characters.

I just don't think that creatures should be able to be commanded to go in direct opposition to their natures, this would not be very restrictive for evil creatures since they can be quite flexible with their morality as long as it benefits them. The joker 'playing' batman into a morally dubious situation in which he has to choose between the best of two evils, as in stealing an item for the joker, is not the same as having batman lay waste to a city and it's inhabitants.

Insanely evil is rarely interesting and if using angels to murder and kill becomes a standard for evil creatures the game loses some of it's credibility, notorious evil should use tools of evil not angels, careful manipulation to entrap good creatures is ok, but this is too easy/cheesy.

I am not saying that they are ready to strike down any and every wizard that calls a demon or devil, those wizards help spread the power of hell or the abyss often indirectly and unknowingly, perhaps every calling spell will weaken the mental barrier between planes allowing the influence of the abyss to spread over 1,000's of years, when the mortals are decidedly disrespectful of the forces they wield they might take offense though.

I can see scenarios where the players have to fight an angel or archon, if the creature in question has been tricked into believing it is aiding a just cause and set to guard an important item, perhaps the spellcaster himself intends to do good even but is just horribly misguided. Having the creature engage in directly and obvious evil acts should not happen though in my opinion. A variation on this is the angelic creature itself being the misguided one, possibly fallen from grace having obtained a neutral (preferably) or evil alignment.


There is also the dimensional occultist archetype for the witch.


Remco Sommeling wrote:
Myth in the bible or otherwise isn't D&D/PF, if you read enough stories you will notice that 'demon' is used rather liberally and doesn't exactly mean the same thing as it does in D&D. Any extra planar entity that is not either the 'One true god' or serve god directly is called a demon.

It matters when you consider it is the source material and that the mechanics back it up. You won't be making them do anything suicidal, but you can definitely make them do stuff they don't want to. That's the point. Planar Ally gives you someone who wants to help you. Planar Binding forces something to help you even if it doesn't agree with you. It's not a matter of diplomacy and good deals. It's raw force of personality binding the called creature.

Of course, it comes with more risks. There's always at least a 5% chance that the creature will break free and try to kick your butt, or greater teleport away, recover its strengths, and guerrilla war with you.

Quote:
Evil and good are not mirror opposites of eachother either, having a demon aid you might be repulsive to such a creature but it doesn't usually care one way or another if it gets rewarded well enough, a good creature is different because it has morals.

You keep saying this, but I don't see how you figure. Nobody, good or evil, likes being bossed around or forced into doing things. The greatest enemy of freedom is happy slaves though.

Quote:
The malconvoker is a very exact exception to the rule it more or less proves the opposite point since that class actually relates alignment type spells to acts of that alignment. I think the entire class would be much more interesting for an evil character, good intentions paving the road to hell and such.. all in all a weird prestige class to even exist for good aligned characters.

The only thing the Malconvoker does is add the binding spells to your spell list (or make them available at a lower level if they already are) and allow clerics to cast conjuration spells opposed to their alignment. Nothing else is changed. Only improved. You get longer duration summons, more summons, applying penalties to their opposed Charisma checks to resist your bindings, and increase the HD limit of your called creatures by 2. Nothing else is done. The class does not change how the spells it uses work.

It's not a weird class to exist either. Again, look at the source material. It even makes logical sense. Why have angels and stuff get killed in your battle when you can turn the infinite hordes of evil against itself?

Also, forcing good creatures to do bad things is as old as the hills as well. Look at most any story with a good-aligned Djinn who is being controlled by an evil master. Heck, even in Baldur's Gate II (you don't get more D&D than BG), you can meet a well meaning Djinn in the first dungeon and can free him from the incredibly powerful mage that you are captured by. He gives you a boon for freeing him from the mage's grasp, and warns you to beware, because he would torture you for escaping and kill you for freeing his "genie slave".

Quote:
I just don't think that creatures should be able to be commanded to go in direct opposition to their natures,

There's nothing preventing creatures with good and evil subtypes from committing acts that are opposed to those things. Based on the alignment descriptions, violence and killing is a trait of evil, and yet many celestials relish it when they get to do such things to evil creatures. Likewise, again, let's look at the source material for these beings. The fallen angel or redeemed evil is a story as old as time.

Quote:
this would not be very restrictive for evil creatures since they can be quite flexible with their morality as long as it benefits them. The joker 'playing' batman into a morally dubious situation in which he has to choose between the best of two evils, as in stealing an item for the joker, is not the same as having batman lay waste to a city and it's inhabitants.

And I completely disagree. It's not a matter of trickery. It's a matter of forcing. If Joker had a device that allowed him to control Bats, and he had the option of pressing a button to nuke a city, would he push the button or would he make Bats push the button? My money is on him making Bats push it, because that would be hilariously evil irony of the Joker variety, to have Bats be the guy to blow up Gotham city though all he wants is to save it.

Quote:
Insanely evil is rarely interesting and if using angels to murder and kill becomes a standard for evil creatures the game loses some of it's credibility, notorious evil should use tools of evil not angels, careful manipulation to entrap good creatures is ok, but this is too easy/cheesy.

Who said anything about standard evil? You're putting words in my mouth. It's something a wicked caster would do because of his ego trip. It's a power thing. Assuredly most bad guys would probably call fiends to do their dirty work because fiends wouldn't require as much effort to break into doing their dirty work. It's not a matter of whether they can or not, but the effort involved. Try to force a ghaele azata to purge a village and the ghaele is going to fight you tooth and nail the whole way, and is going to try and do as little as she possibly can to assist you. Try to force a Glabrezu to serve him for the same purposes? Well the Glabrezu is going to give up first. So the big bad gets his free wish spell and then sends the Glabrezu off to purge a village. The Glabrezu unlike the Ghaele isn't going to just purge the village while shouting for all its inhabitants to quickly flee the village whilst she burns it down. It's going to try and make sure their is as much collateral damage as possible. Or at least, that's what I would expect of it.

But seriously, am I the only one who has heard, read, or watched stories where bad guys turn good guys against each other? Seriously, I think the mind-controlled/compelled minion is a seriously old trope by this point. Hell, it's even on TvTropes. *head tilt*

EDIT: In fact, add In There Somewhere, Tragic Monster (and frankly a bound Ghaele is a hell of a lot more interesting and tragic than monsters made out to be interesting and tragic, like Forlarren). It also has opportunities for Friendly Enemy, elements of Children Forced to Kill, has opportunities for More than Mind Control, is loosely related to Villain Override, and Kill the Ones you Love.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Planar binding is one of those things that GMs tend to try and screw players over with all the time.

The corrollary is that many such players ask to be properly screwed over.


LazarX wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Planar binding is one of those things that GMs tend to try and screw players over with all the time.
The corrollary is that many such players ask to be properly screwed over.

True. In fact, I noted...

Ashiel wrote:
As a GM, I'm not salivating at the mouth to try and screw you over for using spells like planar binding as intended, but if you're asking for it, then you'll get it. Binding a servant to your will is entirely possible, but it's also entirely possible to have your servant wrenched from your control and given the freedom to reciprocate the cruelties that you bestowed upon them.

I'll generally warn PCs (especially newbies) if they're doing something that might be risky (because PCs know more about the limits of their capabilities than players do in some cases). Some players are willing to take the risk, or might even want to get screwed (the OP noted that it might be fun to give the GM a free pass for a recurring villain from a binding gone awry).

I just don't advocate trying to screw them over because they are binding. If anything, not trying to screw them over greatly adds to the effect when the bound creature gets an opportunity to get free. For example, if you bind a Glabrezu and force it to serve you for a while (maximum servitude is 1 day / caster level), and someone wrenches the critter from your control, you might be in big trouble. A great example would be sending the Glabrezu to preform a task, and the big bad catches the Glabrezu and uses something like hold monster or catches him in his own magic circle or similar. Then he inquires as to why the Glabrezu is bothering him. The Glabrezu simply says he is compelled to serve the caller. So what does the bad guy do? He gives the Glabrezu his freedom after he's held it until the binding wore off. Now you have a called creature set against you.

So many ways for planar bindings to be so interesting, but nobody will risk it since GMs spend more time trying to screw people over or make excuses as to why you can't do stuff. IMHO, most casters should rarely fail to bind most creatures they are capable of binding. It makes it more serious when they do fail, by lulling them into a sense of security that may vanish. It's also a great plot device. I had a low-level party who encountered a fiendish cougar in a mountain region that had been called by an apprentice mage who rolled a 1 on his Charisma check and had the cougar break free. The cougar killed him, but was then stuck on the material plane and assumed dominance over a local pride. When the PCs encountered this strange talking fiendish creature, they struck a deal with it. It would help them rescue a friend, and they would procure the means to send it home (by buying a scroll of dismissal or something).

Fun times.


From the malconvoker PRC

"Unrestricted Conjuration: For the purpose only of casting conjuration spells, you can ignore any restrictions that forbid you from casting spells of certain alignments. In addition, regular use of conjuration spells with the evil descriptor does not threaten to change your alignment. For example, a good cleric who becomes a malconvoker could cast summon monster I to summon a fiendish raven (whose alignment gives the spell the evil descriptor). The cleric could not cast death knell, though, which has the evil descriptor but is not of the conjuration school."

So usually casting evil spells threatens to change your alignment, the logics behind that is not so much that you can not do that, rather it is that it is not something a character of opposite alignment SHOULD do. If you are evil you do not make a habbit of calling angels, if you are good you do not make a habbit of calling demons and devils. Like I said the malconvoker is a specific exception..

On the malconvoker, while I understand the trope of using evil against itself, it does not fit the typical perception of good in D&D, someone that plays lose and fast with evil forces is either stupidly arrogant or not trully good, neutral alignment fits, as does well meaning evil, good in my opinion does not.. ofcourse it is meant to make players happy not to make consistent sense.

I figure if you tell ask a devil to heal you it wouldn't do it from the kindness of it's heart, if you ask it to in exchange for valuable item or a few souls it probably will. Ask an angel to kill a unicorn and I don't see how you would convince it to do that, likely it would be an event to trigger it's fall if it complied, it would only be tempted to do this if the alternative is much worse.

The creature's you call are not mind controlled though they are bargained and tortured to comply. I just think it should have limits, a djinni is good aligned (though not so much in my game) but it isn't strongly identified with it and are classical trope of controlled slaves in the case of outsiders with the [good] subtype I am having serious doubts about taking the game in that direction.

I am not ptting words in your mouth, it is just saying that I do not wish to see the game slide in such a direction where angels become puppets to whoever summons it. It is also that it is just too easy, it isn't epic, it isn't awesome, it tastes like cheese.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Remco Sommeling wrote:

From the malconvoker PRC

"Unrestricted Conjuration: For the purpose only of casting conjuration spells, you can ignore any restrictions that forbid you from casting spells of certain alignments. In addition, regular use of conjuration spells with the evil descriptor does not threaten to change your alignment. For example, a good cleric who becomes a malconvoker could cast summon monster I to summon a fiendish raven (whose alignment gives the spell the evil descriptor). The cleric could not cast death knell, though, which has the evil descriptor but is not of the conjuration school."

Casting spells with alignment subtypes do not change your alignment, but it's a common house rule. Before you say anything, I'd also like to point out that even Paizo has published material that references rules that do not exist, or have published things like feats that allow you to do things that you already could in the rules. It's easy to do. EDIT: Or they might have assumed that you might be using optional rules from splatbooks like the Book of Vile Darkness, and taking that into account when making the prestige class. It would not be redundant in that case, and it was common for WotC to publish material that provided supplemental material for supplemental material.

Quote:
So usually casting evil spells threatens to change your alignment, the logics behind that is not so much that you can not do that, rather it is that it is not something a character of opposite alignment SHOULD do. If you are evil you do not make a habbit of calling angels, if you are good you do not make a habbit of calling demons and devils.

But it doesn't stop you from doing so. There's nothing stopping an evil wizard from calling a good outsider and forcing them to do what he wants. Even if you play with the house rule that casting alignment subtype spells will change your alignment (there are no rules that say they do this, nor anything mentioned on how to handle it, or anything about it in the core rules) the wizard isn't going to stop being evil because he summons an angel and forces it to do what he wants. If anything, it should make him more evil. Likewise, a Neutral Wizard who summons a fiend to rescue a child from a burning building (fiend having fire resistance or immunity) isn't going to stop being Neutral even with your house rules (because even if it's a bit evil to summon a fiend, it's also a bit good to use them for good).

Quote:
On the malconvoker, while I understand the trope of using evil against itself, it does not fit the typical perception of good in D&D, someone that plays lose and fast with evil forces is either stupidly arrogant or not trully good, neutral alignment fits, as does well meaning evil, good in my opinion does not.. ofcourse it is meant to make players happy not to make consistent sense.

I should care about the "typical perception of good in D&D" why exactly? D&D morality is stupid. It doesn't work. It's filled with paradoxes and contradictions. Hell, a Paladin cannot even exist if you take this route, because Paladins have to commit evil against evil to even function (evil involves hurting, killing, or oppressing, and Paladins by their very nature do all of those things to evil creatures). Either there are shades of gray or the game does not work. EDIT: Actually, I take that back. D&D alignment isn't stupid. The things that some people ascribe to D&D alignment, like absolutes, are stupid. D&D alignment is actually filled with grays, and only tell you how most alignments tend to act, and notes repeatedly that aligned creatures do not match these alignments perfectly, nor are they strait jackets, or even hard and fast rules beyond the crunchy bits.

Quote:
I figure if you tell ask a devil to heal you it wouldn't do it from the kindness of it's heart, if you ask it to in exchange for valuable item or a few souls it probably will. Ask an angel to kill a unicorn and I don't see how you would convince it to do that, likely it would be an event to trigger it's fall if it complied, it would only be tempted to do this if the alternative is much worse.

You're right. You probably wouldn't get them to do either just asking them to. Of course, we're talking about binding where a creature is forced to accept your demands if your personality overpowers their own.

Quote:
The creature's you call are not mind controlled though they are bargained and tortured to comply. I just think it should have limits, a djinni is good aligned (though not so much in my game) but it isn't strongly identified with it and are classical trope of controlled slaves in the case of outsiders with the [good] subtype I am having serious doubts about taking the game in that direction.

Want to know what having an alignment subtype does?

Good Subtype wrote:
This subtype is usually applied to outsiders native to the good-aligned Outer Planes. Most creatures that have this subtype also have good alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has a good alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the good subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields are good-aligned.

That's it. It doesn't give any special resistances against being ordered to do things it doesn't want to do. It's just treated as being an alignment, and treats its weapons as aligned. In fact, it doesn't even determine its alignment. You ascribing things to aligned subtypes that do not exist. You are trying to impose your house rules on this conversation because you dislike the idea of outsiders being forced to do things they don't want to do. In fact, there are lots of Neutral aligned celestial and fiendish creatures (whenever a Neutral-aligned caster summons a fiendish or celestial creature they summon one of the neutral ones).

But there is no special resistance or immunities in play here. They're native to good-aligned planes, and they are always treated as a certain alignment regardless of their own aignment, and they have their natural weapons treated as being aligned to that. Nothing else.


Shalafi2412 wrote:
There is also the dimensional occultist archetype for the witch.

Thanks, where might I find this?

Wow, sorry everyone wasn't trying to start a debate.


Ishpumalibu wrote:
Shalafi2412 wrote:
There is also the dimensional occultist archetype for the witch.

Thanks, where might I find this?

Wow, sorry everyone wasn't trying to start a debate.

It's fine Ishpumalibu. Some people have nothing better to do than argue house rules or tell other people how they are playing wrong. It's just another Monday on the Paizo boards.

Also, here is the Dimensional Occultist archtype. I hope this thread continues to provide you with information and fun opportunities for you and your group.


Thanks again ashiel :)


Ishpumalibu wrote:
Thanks again ashiel :)

You are very welcome sir. If there is anything else you need, such as perhaps a compilation of cool minions, let me know.


I am playing a Dimensional Occultist witch in a game. She is from Cheliax and I love her. She is LN but at 7th level will take the improved familiar feat to get an imp. I plan on taking 2 levels in Diabolist as well. Having two imps flying around will be great.


Shalafi2412 wrote:
I am playing a Dimensional Occultist witch in a game. She is from Cheliax and I love her. She is LN but at 7th level will take the improved familiar feat to get an imp. I plan on taking 2 levels in Diabolist as well. Having two imps flying around will be great.

Agreed! Plus that's twice as many commune spells. ^.^


Ashiel wrote:
Ishpumalibu wrote:
Shalafi2412 wrote:
There is also the dimensional occultist archetype for the witch.

Thanks, where might I find this?

Wow, sorry everyone wasn't trying to start a debate.

It's fine Ishpumalibu. Some people have nothing better to do than argue house rules or tell other people how they are playing wrong. It's just another Monday on the Paizo boards.

Also, here is the Dimensional Occultist archtype. I hope this thread continues to provide you with information and fun opportunities for you and your group.

Condescending much ?

I was thinking we were having a friendly debate and then you spout this nonsense. Never had the pretention of preaching almighty RAW, I was simply criticizing your arguments and arguing points from my perspective.


I just came back and saw a wall of text, I wasn't trying to be rude.


Ishpumalibu wrote:
I just came back and saw a wall of text, I wasn't trying to be rude.

you weren't ishpumalibu, as of the moment you are probably one of the most polite people on the forum


Ashiel wrote:
Shalafi2412 wrote:
I am playing a Dimensional Occultist witch in a game. She is from Cheliax and I love her. She is LN but at 7th level will take the improved familiar feat to get an imp. I plan on taking 2 levels in Diabolist as well. Having two imps flying around will be great.
Agreed! Plus that's twice as many commune spells. ^.^

Do they get consular imps as familiars and companions? I am not too sure.


Remco Sommeling wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Ishpumalibu wrote:
Shalafi2412 wrote:
There is also the dimensional occultist archetype for the witch.

Thanks, where might I find this?

Wow, sorry everyone wasn't trying to start a debate.

It's fine Ishpumalibu. Some people have nothing better to do than argue house rules or tell other people how they are playing wrong. It's just another Monday on the Paizo boards.

Also, here is the Dimensional Occultist archtype. I hope this thread continues to provide you with information and fun opportunities for you and your group.

Condescending much ?

I was thinking we were having a friendly debate and then you spout this nonsense. Never had the pretention of preaching almighty RAW, I was simply criticizing your arguments and arguing points from my perspective.

My apologies if it wasn't your intention then. I've become admittedly very short with these sorts of things, because of experiences with some other posters. I had a similar conversation that devolved into pointless arguing and bitter feelings. I had no desire to go down that road again.

If you want to discuss the non-RAW implications, separate from what you can and can not do, then I'm up for that. However, it seemed to me like you were coming into the thread to be argumentative rather than offering anything of worth. For example, you came out of the gate arguing rules that don't exist, and weren't adding anything beyond what seemed like "you can't do that (because I don't like the sound of it)". Again, if I misinterpreted, then we're cool, and I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions. I'm admittedly more defensive than I used to be, because I have to put up with one or two posters who just seem to get their rocks off being contrary to anything I've posted. It's possible that I took my frustrations out on you, and if so then I owe you another apology.

But if you want to stop arguing it, we can discuss it from a narrative perspective and contribute to the shared ideas and potential plot devices and narrative archtypes and tropes that could be explored with planar binding in its various uses. I'd enjoy that very much, I think.


Shalafi2412 wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Shalafi2412 wrote:
I am playing a Dimensional Occultist witch in a game. She is from Cheliax and I love her. She is LN but at 7th level will take the improved familiar feat to get an imp. I plan on taking 2 levels in Diabolist as well. Having two imps flying around will be great.
Agreed! Plus that's twice as many commune spells. ^.^
Do they get consular imps as familiars and companions? I am not too sure.

Standard imps can cast commune as a spell-like ability 1/week with a 12th caster level (6 questions).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd just like to mention, Ashiel, that while I wholeheartedly share your view of summoning, binding, and possibly other spells with the [Evil] descriptor, I've found that the one area where Pathfinder seems to be rather narrow-minded is that repeatedly casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor makes you evil, regardless of what you do with that spell. I actually debated James Jacobs over this about Infernal Healing and Paladins (specifically an example of a Paladin with no healing left but a scroll of Infernal Healing and a dying child), and he was unwavering on the issue, which I always found somewhat absurd.


Brotato wrote:
I'd just like to mention, Ashiel, that while I wholeheartedly share your view of summoning, binding, and possibly other spells with the [Evil] descriptor, I've found that the one area where Pathfinder seems to be rather narrow-minded is that repeatedly casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor makes you evil, regardless of what you do with that spell. I actually debated James Jacobs over this about Infernal Healing and Paladins (specifically an example of a Paladin with no healing left but a scroll of Infernal Healing and a dying child), and he was unwavering on the issue, which I always found somewhat absurd.

Agreed actually. I'm not sure where D&D alignment got so dumbed down. When I was 13 and 3E was new, I was so impressed with how much it made you think about things philosophically, and really seemed to be very deep with how it rationalized and explained alignment. Alignment was about choices, motivations, and reasons primarily. Creatures incapable of moral choice were Neutral (like mindless undead, lemures, animals, and so forth) and were always considered Neutral (it actually said if you didn't have an Intelligence or had an Intelligence less than 3 then you were not sentient and incapable of moral choices and thus had no alignment).

Sometime after the Book of Vile Darkness, everything that was intellectual, and made you think about things like the nature of good and evil got thrown in the trash. It has felt like 3.5 has gone down hill greatly, and in some cases took Pathfinder along for the ride. Now people argue absurdities that fall apart if you continue the train of logic to its derailment. Good and Evil are cheapened and made mockery of, because there is no longer a difference between good and evil any further than there is a difference between black and white. Morality is not binary, but people are trying to force it to be; and they try to force it on other people and cite rules that do not exist to try and make their claims seem more valid. It's very annoying. If alignment continues on this track in any eventual PF 2E, I will probably get off the train at that point.

Not to mention we had more intellectual in the 3.0 days. I mean, you could find creatures of all kinds of different alignments. You had more variety. People looked at intent, method, and result when weighing things. If you were playing a Paladin and DIDN'T heal the kid with your scroll of infernal healing and you did so because the scroll was made with dark magic, I'd have considered requiring atonement from your Paladin for putting yourself before the child, but wouldn't have batted an eyelash for you using the scroll to save him. If anything, you were acting entirely in the realm of goodness as defined by alignments.

Specifically...

Alignment wrote:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

EDIT: That being said, it's still not in the rules that casting aligned spells have any effect on your alignment. (@-@)


Shalafi2412 wrote:
There is also the dimensional occultist archetype for the witch.

It should be noted that the archetype is utter crap at planar binding. Why - because they utterly gimped the Witch spell list.

Consider the text of planar binding:
"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."

Guess which spell isn't on the Witch spell list, nor on the Dimensional Occultist patron list...Yes, they did not think that one through.


pad300 wrote:
Shalafi2412 wrote:
There is also the dimensional occultist archetype for the witch.

It should be noted that the archetype is utter crap at planar binding. Why - because they utterly gimped the Witch spell list.

Consider the text of planar binding:
"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."

Guess which spell isn't on the Witch spell list, nor on the Dimensional Occultist patron list...Yes, they did not think that one through.

Yeah you definitely do not want to do any planar binding without magic circles. That's asking for trouble in spades. WotC made a similar blunder with the dread necromancer. The exact same blunder in fact (planar binding spells but no magic circle spells).

I guess if you want to call completely uncontrolled outsiders and hope for the best then that would be the way to go... XD

Actually, that reminds me of the fiend summoning spells in Baldur's Gate. There were lots of fiend calling spells that summoned a demon or devil that was hostile to you unless you had cast protection from evil or some such equivalent before calling them. The idea was you called the fiend and ran for the hills while it killed everything in sight. When the fiend finally vanished, you fished through the rubble. XD


Ashiel wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:


Condescending much ?

I was thinking we were having a friendly debate and then you spout this nonsense. Never had the pretention of preaching almighty RAW, I was simply criticizing your arguments and arguing points from my perspective.

My apologies if it wasn't your intention then. I've become admittedly very short with these sorts of things, because of experiences with some other posters. I had a similar conversation that devolved into pointless arguing and bitter feelings. I had no desire to go down that road again.

If you want to discuss the non-RAW implications, separate from what you can and can not do, then I'm up for that. However, it seemed to me like you were coming into the thread to be argumentative rather than offering anything of worth. For example, you came out of the gate arguing rules that don't exist, and weren't adding anything beyond what seemed like "you can't do that (because I don't like the sound of it)". Again, if I misinterpreted, then we're cool, and I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions. I'm admittedly more defensive than I used to be, because I have to put up with one or two posters who just seem to get their rocks off being contrary to anything I've posted. It's possible that I took my frustrations out on you, and if so then I owe you another apology.
...

It's fine, appoligy accepted. I am not trying to be contrary, just explaining why I do not like certain things from a narrative point of view and hearing your opinion on the matter. My appoligies if what I perceived as a friendly discussion was annoying you.


Ashiel wrote:
pad300 wrote:
Shalafi2412 wrote:
There is also the dimensional occultist archetype for the witch.

It should be noted that the archetype is utter crap at planar binding. Why - because they utterly gimped the Witch spell list.

Consider the text of planar binding:
"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."

Guess which spell isn't on the Witch spell list, nor on the Dimensional Occultist patron list...Yes, they did not think that one through.

Yeah you definitely do not want to do any planar binding without magic circles. That's asking for trouble in spades. WotC made a similar blunder with the dread necromancer. The exact same blunder in fact (planar binding spells but no magic circle spells).

I guess if you want to call completely uncontrolled outsiders and hope for the best then that would be the way to go... XD

Actually, that reminds me of the fiend summoning spells in Baldur's Gate. There were lots of fiend calling spells that summoned a demon or devil that was hostile to you unless you had cast protection from evil or some such equivalent before calling them. The idea was you called the fiend and ran for the hills while it killed everything in sight. When the fiend finally vanished, you fished through the rubble. XD

What happened with the dread necromancer to necro-block it?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Brotato wrote:
I'd just like to mention, Ashiel, that while I wholeheartedly share your view of summoning, binding, and possibly other spells with the [Evil] descriptor, I've found that the one area where Pathfinder seems to be rather narrow-minded is that repeatedly casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor makes you evil, regardless of what you do with that spell. I actually debated James Jacobs over this about Infernal Healing and Paladins (specifically an example of a Paladin with no healing left but a scroll of Infernal Healing and a dying child), and he was unwavering on the issue, which I always found somewhat absurd.

I'd side with Jacobs on that particular issue. I wouldn't strip a Paladin of his powers for doing that. But there's no question that a Paladin should never use evil means for good ends unless he really has to and it's still at the very least an atonement level violation of his class vows.


Remco Sommeling wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:


Condescending much ?

I was thinking we were having a friendly debate and then you spout this nonsense. Never had the pretention of preaching almighty RAW, I was simply criticizing your arguments and arguing points from my perspective.

My apologies if it wasn't your intention then. I've become admittedly very short with these sorts of things, because of experiences with some other posters. I had a similar conversation that devolved into pointless arguing and bitter feelings. I had no desire to go down that road again.

If you want to discuss the non-RAW implications, separate from what you can and can not do, then I'm up for that. However, it seemed to me like you were coming into the thread to be argumentative rather than offering anything of worth. For example, you came out of the gate arguing rules that don't exist, and weren't adding anything beyond what seemed like "you can't do that (because I don't like the sound of it)". Again, if I misinterpreted, then we're cool, and I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions. I'm admittedly more defensive than I used to be, because I have to put up with one or two posters who just seem to get their rocks off being contrary to anything I've posted. It's possible that I took my frustrations out on you, and if so then I owe you another apology.
...

It's fine, appoligy accepted. I am not trying to be contrary, just explaining why I do not like certain things from a narrative point of view and hearing your opinion on the matter. My appoligies if what I perceived as a friendly discussion was annoying you.

I had a kneejerk reaction. It was not long ago that I was discussing Planar Binding with some board-friends in another thread, and some dude jumped in and was all like "NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT, HERE'S WHY" and then proceeded to spew incorrect rules all over the page in a manner that was also hard to follow due to the layout of his posts. Then when it was made clear (by multiple posters) that his rules-fu had failed him, then he started down the same "well those celestials won't stand for it" path as to why this would "never work" since he couldn't argue it with the rules.

While your posts have been a lot better than his, I felt like it was going to head down that pointless argument again. I actually would love to discuss the narrative aspects of it with you however, if we can keep the "wrong/right" arguments to the side. This thread is to help
Ishpumalibu and others to get ideas for planar binding in their games, so let us both share.

========================================================================
1.) As a resource, I like Planar Binding because it is more varied than spells like summon monster and allows you more elaborate uses with your called creatures. It is also up to the caster as to how they treat a planar binding. Planar Binding could be used to simply arrange a meeting, such as if you wanted to ask an angel for advice; or it can be used to force a creature into servitude. It can be both passive, or aggressive, or may even be used to pay a tribute (call an outsider, give them a gift, send them back).

2.) As a plot device, it's very strong. It single-handedly creates the primary means of encountering outsiders on the material plane. Everything from Azata to Devils can be called and put into service in some fashion. This allows a variety of interesting applications, and as noted before offers a way to challenge players with creatures they likely normally wouldn't oppose, such as angels, azata, and archons. Having enemies that you don't necessarily wish to kill.

3.) On the subject of using outsiders aligned with the heroes, it opens up all manner of possibilities. The story telling elements are many. Just before, I linked some of the following tropes that are ripe for the picking with this sort of activity.


  • It creates very reasonable Fighting Your Friend scenarios.
  • If dealing with forced actions via magic it opens up scenarios for In There Somewhere.
  • It makes Tragic Monsterss that are actually tragic and you can sympathize with. Sometimes writers try to make this a theme of a monster but usually they end up jokes or really badly done. The Forlarren is a joke and doesn't really evoke much emotion or care from the heroes (just seems like a fey that needs tranquilizers).
  • Next to sentient undead, planar binding is one of the easiest methods to produce a Friendly Enemy where a sentient who likes and respects the heroes is placed in their path as an enemy, possibly a recurring one.
  • Has the possibility to push plots into the Children Forced to Kill direction, where the heroes (or simply the players) realize that they need to intercede because it's sick and wrong to make a being of goodness do evil against its will.
  • It opens up opportunities for alignment changes due to More Than Mind Control when the morality and ethics of an outsider begin to erode due to being subjected to the machinations of the enemy. A bit like Stockholm syndrome as strange attachments are formed between the binder and the bonded. A devil who doesn't want to admit that it appreciates certain kindnesses, or an azata who becomes cynical and cold in the face of such trauma. This might result in outsiders who feel estranged from the way they saw the world previously, resulting in Neutral-aligned Outsiders, or even setting them on the path of the Fallen Angel or may result in a Heel Face Turn after an evil creature realizes Good Feels Good.
  • As noted before, it has elements of Villain Override.
  • It easily leads your true villain beyond the Moral Event Horizon and displays the big bad as a Complete Monster, or at least mark the way for This is Unforgivable.
  • Can be a piece in a game of a Xanatos Gambit.
  • If the bound outsider becomes attached or even loyal to the Big Bad despite their differences, you might have a Magnificent Bastard on your hands. Pairs well with more than mind control.
  • With the right setup, it also has opportunities for the Unwitting Pawn, and it might not even be the outsider who is the unwitting pawn (the PCs might be!).

I could probably go on, but this looks like a good base for a working project. Any or all of these could be used, in different combinations, to create a truly exciting and awesome story. So what is gained with the alternative? Perhaps I am merely nearsighted, but I don't see nearly the amount of potential in a Black & White Morality world, and such things always lead to Black & White Insanity. In fact, Black & White insanity pretty much defines my problem with black and white settings:

Black & White Insanity wrote:
In Real Life, seeing the world in absolute Black and White Morality is considered normal for small children, but seen as a far less healthy trait in adults. A person who regards the people around him as entirely good or entirely evil, as if they were part of some really simplistic narrative, is very likely to have a mental disorder.

Most of it always leads to either really stupid and boring stories, or crushes verisimilitude under the weight of the Insane Troll Logic.

Thoughts?


Ishpumalibu wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
pad300 wrote:
Shalafi2412 wrote:
There is also the dimensional occultist archetype for the witch.

It should be noted that the archetype is utter crap at planar binding. Why - because they utterly gimped the Witch spell list.

Consider the text of planar binding:
"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."

Guess which spell isn't on the Witch spell list, nor on the Dimensional Occultist patron list...Yes, they did not think that one through.

Yeah you definitely do not want to do any planar binding without magic circles. That's asking for trouble in spades. WotC made a similar blunder with the dread necromancer. The exact same blunder in fact (planar binding spells but no magic circle spells).

I guess if you want to call completely uncontrolled outsiders and hope for the best then that would be the way to go... XD

Actually, that reminds me of the fiend summoning spells in Baldur's Gate. There were lots of fiend calling spells that summoned a demon or devil that was hostile to you unless you had cast protection from evil or some such equivalent before calling them. The idea was you called the fiend and ran for the hills while it killed everything in sight. When the fiend finally vanished, you fished through the rubble. XD

What happened with the dread necromancer to necro-block it?

Well the Dread Necromancer had the planar binding spells on their spell list, but none of the spells that you use in conjunction with planar binding (magic circle spells, dimensional anchor spells, etc), making casting those spells near worthless or in some cases outright stupid.


Brotato wrote:
I'd just like to mention, Ashiel, that while I wholeheartedly share your view of summoning, binding, and possibly other spells with the [Evil] descriptor, I've found that the one area where Pathfinder seems to be rather narrow-minded is that repeatedly casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor makes you evil, regardless of what you do with that spell. I actually debated James Jacobs over this about Infernal Healing and Paladins (specifically an example of a Paladin with no healing left but a scroll of Infernal Healing and a dying child), and he was unwavering on the issue, which I always found somewhat absurd.

Yeah I find that alignment changing rule to be silly, I always argue that ACTIONS taken with the spell determines the "Alignment". My classic example; Fireball, has no alignment, but take in to account the action of casting fireball to defend a town against bandits, vs. the action of burning innocent bystanders, because you got "bored".


Nemitri wrote:
Brotato wrote:
I'd just like to mention, Ashiel, that while I wholeheartedly share your view of summoning, binding, and possibly other spells with the [Evil] descriptor, I've found that the one area where Pathfinder seems to be rather narrow-minded is that repeatedly casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor makes you evil, regardless of what you do with that spell. I actually debated James Jacobs over this about Infernal Healing and Paladins (specifically an example of a Paladin with no healing left but a scroll of Infernal Healing and a dying child), and he was unwavering on the issue, which I always found somewhat absurd.
Yeah I find that alignment changing rule to be silly, I always argue that ACTIONS taken with the spell determines the "Alignment". My classic example; Fireball, has no alignment, but take in to account the action of casting fireball to defend a town against bandits, vs. the action of burning innocent bystanders, because you got "bored".

Yeah. Even sillier when you realize there is no rule... :P


"Um, magical compulsion? It's planar binding. Ever read about King Solomon and his Seal? The whole reason summoning and binding outsiders to your will exists in fantasy is because of the stories of King Solomon binding Demons and forcing them to do stuff like build the Temple of Jerusalem. The demons were not happy with him though, and said that they would torment his people for centuries to come. If an outsider fails the opposed Charisma check, they have to do what you ask of them. It's not a matter of popping an outsider into your circle and then using Diplomacy to make them agree (which you totally can if you want them to agree completely of their own free will), it's binding them to your will."

Ultimate Magic has an extensive section on how to best bargain and negotiate with all sorts of called creatures. Why would this exist if you had complete control over them? I read it that section as implying you have their undivided attention, but still need to convince them to get on board. You supply the carrots and sticks, but it is still not domination.


Magyc wrote:

"Um, magical compulsion? It's planar binding. Ever read about King Solomon and his Seal? The whole reason summoning and binding outsiders to your will exists in fantasy is because of the stories of King Solomon binding Demons and forcing them to do stuff like build the Temple of Jerusalem. The demons were not happy with him though, and said that they would torment his people for centuries to come. If an outsider fails the opposed Charisma check, they have to do what you ask of them. It's not a matter of popping an outsider into your circle and then using Diplomacy to make them agree (which you totally can if you want them to agree completely of their own free will), it's binding them to your will."

Ultimate Magic has an extensive section on how to best bargain and negotiate with all sorts of called creatures. Why would this exist if you had complete control over them? I read it that section as implying you have their undivided attention, but still need to convince them to get on board. You supply the carrots and sticks, but it is still not domination.

I wasn't talking about any optional splatbooks. I'm talking about core planar binding, which allows an opposed Charisma check to resist your demands. You even get up to a +6 on your check if you're getting the shaft. However, if you lose the check, then you're property of the caster for a while. The summoning and binding outsiders stuff in the ultimate magic splatbook goes into a good bit of discussion about making the outsiders happy with the negotiations, and granting beneficial modifiers to your Charisma check to control them. It does not actually contest anything in the actual spells.

You can certainly drag a high level fiend out of hell, shove it in a box, and poke it until it cries uncle. The question is, do you really want to? Perhaps if you plan to kill the fiend before his service is complete, and prevent him from rising against you when freed, but let's face it, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

EDIT: For example, Ultimate Magic agrees.

Ultimate Magic wrote:

Some outsiders lash out at their failed binders. Because of this, many binders take additional precautions: a second magic circle in which they can stand, and dimensional anchor cast within the magic circle to prevent the conjured outsider from fleeing instantly. A tremendously powerful wizard or sorcerer might even use trap the soul on his victim, forcing it into a prepared vessel until it agrees to the binder's strictures.

Smart arcane binders often make deals with the creatures they call. Like clerics using planar ally, they bargain and shower the outsider with gifts in exchange for their services. While it is always good for an arcane spellcaster to make these deals from a position of strength, it is much better to get the outsider to come to mutually agreed upon terms for the service, rather than forcing it to commit actions against its nature or desires.

Using Trap the Soul is a vicious idea. I've never bothered to have a caster be that mean, but that's pretty brilliant. You can even use it to force them to agree to your binding. Bloody 'ell. XD

EDIT 2: In fact, Trap the Soul + Sympathy keyed to the alignment subtype of a creature you're summoning is a wicked trick. Key sympathy to evil and summon any demon, devil, or daemon, and it has to keep saving to resist taking the soul trap willingly. :P

EDIT 3: But I'd seriously like to discuss the narrative even more. We've got a good start (very good start actually) for binding outsiders, so I'd love to begin discussing what they can be used for (both as PCs, NPCs, and as narrative devices).

Lantern Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Dangit, Ashiel . . . just when I'm making headway in my efforts to break away from playing wizards exclusively, you gotta go and remind me of this stuff. Awful person. Awful.

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / I want to make a planar binding caster. any advice? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.