|
So then when a thread like this comes along, saying "Shouldn't common sense trump RAW?", all I can think of is all the times people used that same idea as grounds to make accusations of other people's ethics and motives, and then disappeared without a word as soon as it came to light that their "common sense" was a load of crap. All I can think of is all the times that "RAW vs Logic" turned out to be "Literacy vs Elitism".
And I can cite just as many examples that went the other way. Probably more, in fact.
The right answer for a gray area is make a thread and FAQ it. I've noticed, without exception, that the people who aren't trying to cheese have no objection to subjecting the question to an FAQ while those who are make excuses not to open a thread and FAQ.
If it isn't an issue that prompted a debate at your table, you aren't going to bring it to the table to discuss if you are really interested in a serious discussion.
|
|
So perhaps the mindsets of "setting trumps rules" and "rules trump setting" are both flawed, and a GM needs to decide in any given situation which one needs to win in order to make the game play better.
That mindset is to me by definition having setting supercede the rules.
Which I am fine with. It is how I think things work best. The "rule" is second to the "game". If the "rule" makes no sense, fix it to make sense.
The rules have to be followed to the best of everyones ability, or you have chaos. However rules (and laws for that matter) can be subverted by technicality if they are read literally rather than for intent.
When the discussion shifts from "What I can I do in this fantastical setting to" to "look what I found in the rules" you aren't trying to interact with the setting, you are trying to game the rules.
So perhaps the mindsets of "setting trumps rules" and "rules trump setting" are both flawed, and a GM needs to decide in any given situation which one needs to win in order to make the game play better.
That mindset is to me by definition having setting supercede the rules.
Which I am fine with. It is how I think things work best. The "rule" is second to the "game". If the "rule" makes no sense, fix it to make sense.
The rules have to be followed to the best of everyones ability, or you have chaos. However rules (and laws for that matter) can be subverted by technicality if they are read literally rather than for intent.
When the discussion shifts from "What I can I do in this fantastical setting to" to "look what I found in the rules" you aren't trying to interact with the setting, you are trying to game the rules.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you want to have control over the rules or the setting, you should DM your own games.
That is, I'm not looking to argue with you, ciretose, but I think you're talking about how the DM runs the table, rather than the setting. Forgotten Realms (D&D) and The Third Imperium (Traveller) are both settings, and I've seen the rules vs arbitration thing you're talking about crop up in both, you know?
EDIT: I think really we're talking about RAW vs RAI, if that explains anything.
|
|
I guess I don't know what this whole "bound genies issue" is.Hit level 14 on a sorcerer with high charisma. Planar bind a genie. Tell him to use his 3 wishes per day to give a +3 inherent bonus to all stats for your entire party(if you want to be nice offer to use some of his wishes for things he likes too). You will most likely win the competing charisma check because a sorcerer gets a huge bonus on charisma.
Even if you fail the check, you won't care because the genie is CR 10 and isn't going to escape your planar binding(and even if he did he couldn't seriously hurt you).
And so if a player approaches you saying "I went to the messageboard and I saw this, and it is rules legal so I did it. Here are my new stats" as a GM you can either agree or disagree.
|
|
Oh I said that earlier, we pretty much agree.
EDIT: I think really we're talking about RAW vs RAI, if that explains anything.I'm not sure I do. That's part of it, but I think the "rules as approximation" vs "rules as laws of physics" goes deeper than RAI vs RAW.
On the setting level, part of it is also: Does everything in the backstory of the world have to match the rules? Does the economy really work like that? Could we really stat out every person in the world by the rules? Etc.
I think RAI presumes that the Devs are writing for the setting. I can see what you mean about the setting "existing" and the rules being an attempt to approximate the setting, but never being able to, but I think the intention of the devs is to get as close to the "real" physics as they can, and so locating the "intent" is for all intents and purposes trying to line up the outcome with the setting, regardless if the wording of the rule matches.
I think everyone and everything: the dungeonmaster, the players, the rules, the setting, must serve the story.
If they mess up the story, they must kneel and serve the story.
If they drive the story, then so be it.
|
|
And if you do both? Have story trump rules when it suits you but hold to the rules over story in other things?
When would you do this? I am asking seriously
If a rule doesn't make sense, you either go with the rule and allow it even if it makes no sense and throws off the setting or you don't.
If it doesn't throw off the setting, it doesn't matter. If the rule agrees with the setting, it doesn't matter.
But when they come into conflict, either you are changing the setting to fit the rule that otherwise would make no sense, or you are changing the rule to fit the setting.
|
|
If you say story trumps rules if they collide you are on the side of story, not rules.No, I'm not. Stop trying to put people on a 'side.' If I were on the 'side' of story, I'd be playing a diceless system (there are tons of good ones). The OPs question was not 'how do you arbitrate rules issues.' The question was, 'Do you either A or B?' My group happily does both.
So again I ask, if the player walks up to you and says "I read about how to get +3 to all attributes for 18k in gold, so I did it" do you allow it or not?
And if you do both? Have story trump rules when it suits you but hold to the rules over story in other things?When would you do this? I am asking seriously
If a rule doesn't make sense, you either go with the rule and allow it even if it makes no sense and throws off the setting or you don't.
If it doesn't throw off the setting, it doesn't matter. If the rule agrees with the setting, it doesn't matter.
But when they come into conflict, either you are changing the setting to fit the rule that otherwise would make no sense, or you are changing the rule to fit the setting.
I think what he means is he does one or the other depending on the needs of the group. How it should be.
|
|
I think what he means is he does one or the other depending on the needs of the group. How it should be.And if you do both? Have story trump rules when it suits you but hold to the rules over story in other things?When would you do this? I am asking seriously
If a rule doesn't make sense, you either go with the rule and allow it even if it makes no sense and throws off the setting or you don't.
If it doesn't throw off the setting, it doesn't matter. If the rule agrees with the setting, it doesn't matter.
But when they come into conflict, either you are changing the setting to fit the rule that otherwise would make no sense, or you are changing the rule to fit the setting.
And I'm saying that if you are going on the needs of the group, that is above the rules.
Which is kind of my point.
The rules are an outline. Pointing to something that makes no sense and saying "It's the rule!" or pointing out a broken loophole and saying "That's the rule!" is something I think very few people actually do at the table.
But it is the only defense of a ton of arguments on here.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But when they come into conflict, either you are changing the setting to fit the rule that otherwise would make no sense, or you are changing the rule to fit the setting.
And if you take each instance as they come, and you average an even split on which side you come down on, what then?
|
|
But when they come into conflict, either you are changing the setting to fit the rule that otherwise would make no sense, or you are changing the rule to fit the setting.And if you take each instance as they come, and you average an even split on which side you come down on, what then?
I don't think that is realistically how it goes. You give in to half of the loopholes at random?
If it effects the setting, it effects the setting. If it doesn't, you probably let it go.
I think for example most people are willing to give sub-optimal choices to players if they want to play a suboptimal choice. That type of thing generally doesn't effect the game.
However something like the genie thing fundamentally changes the game and the setting.
Equating them to "I let one and didn't let one, so average the two" is like saying "I got a paper cut and you got a sucking chest would, so the average is we both got hurt"
|
|
I don't think that is realistically how it goes. You give in to half of the loopholes at random?Not at random. After consideration of the options. Either you change the rule, or you change the setting. Not that hard or unrealistic.
I would argue you aren't changing the setting very often, if at all, to make the rule fit.
Can you give me an example.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You look at the falling rules and realize that some people are just that manly that they can jump from a flying platform, smash through a window, and make a perfect combat roll to their feet without dying. And suddenly high level warriors have an alternative to feather fall.
Bonus points if you can name what pop figure did that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if you have a conflict where the rules and the setting depart (which happens frequently) which one holds higher value at your table.
I'm a firm believer in consistency, and following RAW as much as possible without it ruining the game experience.
Unfortunately this does sort of problem does happen.
Genie Binding, Peasant Railgun, Peasant Grapple Speed Train, D&D 3.5 City Nuke.
And on a smaller scale, it happens constantly: In the established setting, they pretend hitpoints don't work the way they do. For Instance, a level 20 barbarian can be riddled with arrows and crossbow bolts, and just keep coming. The system tries to handwaive it away as the skill to reduce serious injuries to minor ones; and endurance, and all that stuff. And yet, it takes more and more magical healing to repair more and more minor injuries under this explanation.
So either you get supernaturally tough as you level, or you get supernaturally resistant to healing magic and get begin to heal from wounds slower.
When it comes down to choosing stupid or gamebreaking but technically legal, or reasonable, but saying no to RAW, I say no, and then amend the rule that raised the problem. After a while, my game rules drift more and more away from pathfinder RAW. Sometimes, fixing the break from verisimilitude would be painfully difficult to the point of rewriting the game. If the problem can't be dodged, I change the setting to match the mechanics.
So it's a bit of both.
I felt the need, years ago, to work the supernatural toughness from leveling into the setting, and explain it as such. (Otherwise I'd feel the need to rewrite the HP and damage of the game to match the setting).
Same goes for armor. It stops you from being hit. It doesn't protect you when you get hit. Otherwise, when you got hit, you would take less damage if wearing armor than if naked, and that's clearly not the case.
Everyone in the world isn't ignorant to these facts. That's how the world works. They might not know exactly how levels work, but they have a vague idea, and understand how far you can get from training and experience. NPCs take levels. Often in 'adventurer classes'.
Pathfinder and D&D do a bad job simulating a fantasy world without these really weird idiosyncrasies.
If I'm not going to just accept them and use them, I generally play a different game - removing them would involve rewriting pretty much everything (I'd want HP to not scale with level, and armor to protect from harm when struck). If I want to still do fantasy, I do have other choices: Angel, Ghosts of Albion, Witchcraft, Dungeons and Zombies, RuneQuest 6, Mongoose' Legend, SIFRPG, or maybe Dresden Files RPG.
The animal highway still works, though.
Carry over from another thread. I said the following.
"On the one hand you have people who view the game as a puzzle to be solved. How can I make the best X to win all of the things. The rules, to them, are the game.
On the other hand you have the people who view the game as an interactive story that they expect to not be a simple "win" or "lose" kind of proposition. The rules, to them, serve the setting.
Obviously with people who fall in the grey area in between.
When I hear about someone trying to argue for bound genies with no risk granting bonuses, I want to throw a book at them. You are, to me manipulating the rules to break the setting.
When someone else hears me say "You can't do that" to something they think is RAW, to them, I am cheating and being cruel.
I fall very strongly on the side of the rules serve the setting, rather than the setting serving the rules."
1. Do you agree that this is a fair dividing line (with lots of people who fall into grey areas between on various issues)
2. Which side of the debate are you generally on. In other words, do you believe the rules serve the setting or that the setting serves the rules.
I am in the middle. There are some rules that could be broken and not really upset balance, but immersion matters for me also. Thinking you can wishbind in my games is not realistic. I know if I was genie, and I survived/escaped the binder would hate life, or either lose their life.
I basically tell my players you can try X, but there might be consequences. <---The genie may not send something CR appropriate after them either. There is also the fact that if the PC's have thought of it then other NPC's have also.
With that specific example I think the rules are there to help the GM set up his campaign world. Neither the rules nor the setting should trump the other. They should work together.
You look at the falling rules and realize that some people are just that manly that they can jump from a flying platform, smash through a window, and make a perfect combat roll to their feet without dying. And suddenly high level warriors have an alternative to feather fall.
Bonus points if you can name what pop figure did that.
Sonic the mother****ing Hedgehog. :B
(Sorry, I'm influenced by the hilarity of this comic and it's affecting my mood :P)
|
|
Bonus points if you can name what pop figure did that.Sonic the mother****ing Hedgehog. :B
(Sorry, I'm influenced by the hilarity of this comic and it's affecting my mood :P)
*BZZZZT* Wrong. Try more recent. :)
To use the example actually provided by someone in this thread in another thread, if a player asked to be able to pay a high level caster to bind a genie and force that genie to grant wishes that gave that player higher attributes for a cost of approximately 18,000 gold, would you allow it if they could demonstrate that, RAW, it should be allowed.
Ciretose I'm going to need for you to clarify something here, because part of what I'm reading from you may be unintended. Are saying that if somebody (while we're playing, mind you) asks to do something, that I don't think makes sense, but they pull out a rule that allows said thing to happen, what's my next move?
I hate to be nit-picky with you, but at that point, "what makes sense," might have nothing to do with the setting, and have more to do with some sort of perceived sense of mechanics approximating physics.
No. Not even remotely. I'd point the player to things like the Tome of Clear Thought and explain that the game already has magical items that are specifically created to enhance physical and mental attributes, and they have a pretty hefty cost associated with them. I would also ask them why they believe a caster of a high enough power level to bind genies into their service, and force them to grant wishes, would even grant their lowly-arsed self an audience. In addition I would ask them if they would enjoy some Ritz crackers to go with their cheese, so that we can all partake of the canapes. Finally I would point and laugh, until they felt properly shamed, and were again ready to play the game that everyone at the table had been playing, prior to their ridiculous interruption.
That's just me though, and that has nothing to do with the setting's interaction with the rules. It has everything to do with my (the GM) interaction with the expected player type at my table. I must say, too, that I know no player at any of my tables would ever approach the rest of the table, or myself privately, with such a request. Thankfully I've been able to find players whose style of play is much in line with my own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*BZZZZT* Wrong. Try more recent. :)Bonus points if you can name what pop figure did that.Sonic the mother****ing Hedgehog. :B
(Sorry, I'm influenced by the hilarity of this comic and it's affecting my mood :P)
Holy CRAP!!! Wraithstrike and I agree on something. Is it the end of the world as we know it?
With that specific example I think the rules are there to help the GM set up his campaign world. Neither the rules nor the setting should trump the other. They should work together.
I am in the middle. There are some rules that could be broken and not really upset balance, but immersion matters for me also. Thinking you can wishbind in my games is not realistic. I know if I was genie, and I survived/escaped the binder would hate life, or either lose their life.
I'm a bit surprised that everyone assumes that the caster is being a douche to the genie. It's worth nothing that when I actually mentioned this, it was not about forcing the genie to do anything. It was about arranging a meeting and working out a deal that got you 2 wishes and him 1 wish (you need to actually get the help of about 6 djinn to do this effectively, so you may want to pack a lunch).
Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there's a lot of evil casters out there who would much rather stroke their ego or ignore dealing with such an inferior being (what with the fact the djinn has no prayer in the world of overcoming the wizard who binds him if he does not desire it to be so and is indeed capable of torturing and/or just killing the djinn or just enslaving its mind) but I'd hope that would be left more in the realm of things big bad evil guys do (and might make for a fine opportunity to at some point find that the BBEG has an enslaved djinn and rescue the djinn from its servitude). That might be a really cool premise of an adventure (even a lower level adventure) where the PCs can "even the odds" against the big bad by rescuing his enslaved efreeti to help you in the climax of the adventure.
But this is all neither here nor there. What IS here and there is GM/Player interaction. Ciretose seems to be overwhelming hung up on this genie thing lately (it's actually kind of funny, and I've been giggling about it all day :P) but in all seriousness of the topic, it varies from group to group, like pretty much everything. We can see what we can do in the rules and we stick to that for sake of everyone's sanity (because even things like how you make attack rolls or roll critical hits can vary from table to table). If we want to discuss things outside of what is possible within the rules (say because our individual GM does not allow X/Y/Z option or that one splatbook, etc) then we can say so ("Assuming X isn't available, I would do this...").
But when it comes to you and your group, it's important to talk with your players. Listen, and discuss. Avoid dismissing outright. If you have reservations or concerns, talk them over. A lot of things need to be dealt with on a case by case basis, and sometimes house ruled. A great example is simulacrum. Now I've personally never had a real problem with this spell as written because it's never become disruptive in my game (but I can see cases where it definitely could be disruptive) so I hadn't bothered to change it or re-write it because there was not a need. Later, my buddy (well, I like him so I'm gonna call him my buddy even if the feeling isn't reciprocated) Wraithstrike here felt that it was problematic, and so I wrote a new simulacrum for him that was easier to avoid issues with (even if your players wanted to make copies of truly amazing creatures like Solars, Pit Fiends, or Tarrasques).
Casting Time 12 hours
Components V, S, M (sculpture of the target plus powdered rubies worth 500 gp per HD of the simulacrum)
Range 0 ft.
Effect one duplicate creature
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from clay, ice, mud, sand, snow, or stone. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, BAB, saving throws, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can't create a simulacrum of a creature whose HD or levels exceed twice your caster level. A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Perception or Sense Motive check (DC 10 + caster level of the simulacrum spell).
If a creature casts spells as a class (such as a dragon casting spells as a sorcerer), then the duplicate casts spells at half that level (so a duplicate of a creature with 12 HD who casts spells as an 8th level sorcerer would have 6 HD and cast as a 4th level sorcerer). If the creature has spell-like abilities, the duplicate's caster level with those abilities is halved. In addition, the duplicate cannot use any spell-like abilities that mimic spells that wouldn't be available to a spellcaster with caster level equal to the duplicate's HD x 1.5 (so a duplicate with 10 HD loses access to any spell-like ability that mimics a spell requiring a 16th or higher level caster). If the original creature possessed Spell Resistance, the duplicate's spell resistance is reduced for each HD fewer than the original (so a 10 HD duplicate of a creature with 20 HD would have spell resistance equal to the original creature -10).
The duplicate creature retains gross physical characteristics of the original creature, including natural attacks, natural armor, size, ability scores, and traits based on its type (such as construct or undead traits). If the original creature possessed any of the following special abilities or attacks, the duplicate does too: Ability Damage or Drain, Amphibious, Bleed, Blindsense, Blightsight, Breath Weapon (halve any damage dice, to a minimum of 1 die; i.e. 6d6 becomes 3d6), Burn, Change Shape, Channel Resistance, Constrict, Curse, Damage Reduction, Disease, Distraction, Energy Drain, Fast Healing (equal to original's fast healing or 1/2 the duplicate's HD, whichever is less), Fear, Flight, Frightful Presence, Gaze, Immunity, Light Blindness, Light Sensitivity, Paralysis, Plant Traits, Poison, Pounce, Powerful Charge, Pull, Push, Rake, Regeneration (a duplicate instead gains Fast Healing as noted above), Rend, Resistance, Rock Catching, Rock Throwing, Scent, Spell-like abilities, Spell Resistance, Stench, Summon, Swallow Whole, Telepathy, Trample, Tremorsense, Trip, Vulnerabilities, Web, and Whirlwind.
At all times, the simulacrum remains under your absolute command. No special telepathic link exists, so command must be exercised in some other manner (but a simulacrum will not harm you). A simulacrum has no ability to become more powerful. It cannot increase its level or abilities. If reduced to 0 hit points or otherwise destroyed, it reverts to clay, ice, mud, sand, snow, or stone and melts instantly into nothingness. A complex process requiring at least 24 hours, 10 gp per hit point, and a fully equipped magical laboratory can repair damage to a simulacrum. Spells that heal damage are only half as effective on a simulacrum. A limited wish spell may be used to heal the simulacrum of 10 hit points per caster level.
This is the sort of thing I would consider if one of my players legitimately wanted to use simulacrum to make the Fighter a tarrasque to ride on (something I have playfully joked about on the boards in the past). I'd use this version 'cause the result is pretty much guaranteed to be less goofy or problematic. But that's ultimately for my group and I to decide.
I was initially hesitant when one of my players wanted to try and get a genie to grant them wishes. It's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction to such a thing because it sounds really powerful when your first hear it. But I talked it over with them, expressed some of my concerns with it, did a bit of thinking and decided to go along with it. In retrospect it was one of the best things I ever did as a GM because it taught me a lot (and the sky didn't fall down). Communication is key!
And believe it or not, there are things I don't like or want to allow in the game. I'm not a fan of the Summoner class because I hate how they took the summoner, gave it 3/4 spellcasting, and then stuffed full-casting into its spell progression (I dislike how it disrupts the system by moving a lot of spell levels down from where they are in core, and I think it's bad design, and I think they have too much casting that is out of place for them) so right now Summoner is off-limits in my group pending a revision of their spell list (I actually have no major complaints with their eidolon :P).
Coming to the end of this post, I find myself thinking about a lot of thing. As a result, I believe I have come to a conclusion I can get behind, and believe at my core.
The setting, the game, the rules. None of these things exist to serve the one another. They exist to serve you and your group.
*BZZZZT* Wrong. Try more recent. :)Bonus points if you can name what pop figure did that.Sonic the mother****ing Hedgehog. :B
(Sorry, I'm influenced by the hilarity of this comic and it's affecting my mood :P)
Heh, I didn't figure that it was the correct answer, but I don't think it was the wrong answer either (because Sonic is definitely a pop culture figure who has done everything you said). :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a bit surprised that everyone assumes that the caster is being a douche to the genie. It's worth nothing that when I actually mentioned this, it was not about forcing the genie to do anything.
I am in the middle. There are some rules that could be broken and not really upset balance, but immersion matters for me also. Thinking you can wishbind in my games is not realistic. I know if I was genie, and I survived/escaped the binder would hate life, or either lose their life.
I understand you wanted to negoiate with the genie, but the game assumes that binding is a bad thing. That is the difference between planar binding and planar ally. You might ask him after you captured him, but you still captured him first.
It would be like if someone kidnapped you, and then offered you a good deal. Their negotiation terms does not change the fact that you were kidnapped.
Holy CRAP!!! Wraithstrike and I agree on something. Is it the end of the world as we know it?
With that specific example I think the rules are there to help the GM set up his campaign world. Neither the rules nor the setting should trump the other. They should work together.
I never knew you disagreed with me that much.
<writes down MW's name, whistles and flies off> :)
Holy CRAP!!! Wraithstrike and I agree on something. Is it the end of the world as we know it?
With that specific example I think the rules are there to help the GM set up his campaign world. Neither the rules nor the setting should trump the other. They should work together.I never knew you disagreed with me that much.
<writes down MW's name, whistles and flies off> :)
;)
In all honesty, we probably agree more than we don't. I could be wrong though, it's happened before. :P
I'm a bit surprised that everyone assumes that the caster is being a douche to the genie. It's worth nothing that when I actually mentioned this, it was not about forcing the genie to do anything.
I am in the middle. There are some rules that could be broken and not really upset balance, but immersion matters for me also. Thinking you can wishbind in my games is not realistic. I know if I was genie, and I survived/escaped the binder would hate life, or either lose their life.I understand you wanted to negoiate with the genie, but the game assumes that binding is a bad thing. That is the difference between planar binding and planar ally. You might ask him after you captured him, but you still captured him first.
It would be like if someone kidnapped you, and then offered you a good deal. Their negotiation terms does not change the fact that you were kidnapped.
Actually, IMHO it would be more like you beamed me up on the enterprise. That's effectively what you're doing if you're doing it without being hostile. I try to place myself in the shoes of someone when I try to think about this things, and the nearest I can come to a conclusion would be similar to an alien encounter without the anal probing.
Basically a space ship coming over someone, beaming them up. Freaky indeed. So you end up in a special room inside an area. The aliens speak a language you understand. "Hey there." they say. "You are currently on our ship in the protection chamber which is for our mutual safety at the moment, because we wanted to ask a favor of you in exchange for some cool alien gifts. See we would like to study the multi-colored substance known as M&Ms and we know you have a pack. Could we convince you to spare some M&Ms in exchange for this piece of solid platinum we picked up? This stuff is just everywhere where we come from, but I understand it's somewhat precious on your world."
So you think Wow this is weird, I wonder if I'm dreaming so you pinch yourself or tap the energy field around you separating you and your hosts. "Hm, and, uh, what if I want to keep my M&Ms?" you asks, curious if you even have a choice in this. "Oh well we think stealing is wrong, and we're not interested in being hostile to the people of your planet. If you want to keep them, we can put you back where you were at before you got here and try to find another person with these things you call M&Ms." the head alien explains. "Hmm..." you think. "I can get M&Ms any ol' time, but a brick of solid platinum is pretty hard for me to get. Absolutely!". So the two of you make the exchange and you get placed right back where you were. You're left thinking, "Wow, that was strange...and oh my god I have a bar of solid platinum! I hope they want to compare Reeses Pieces next time!" EDIT: Then they use their alien technology to transmit a message to your brain. "Sorry, we already got a sample of those from some kid named Elliot on the flying device your people call a bicycle."
I think insisting that a binding must be hostile is kind of silly. You definitely have the option to use it forcefully, but you don't have to either. There are many applications that you can use planar binding for, including getting someone across the planar border as an actual favor to them. Or a Paladin could have the wizard arrange a meeting between him and an angel to help weigh in on a moral conundrum he is having. Trying to make something hostile when it isn't just makes things silly and muddies the water for things that actually are hostile. Planar binding is not the same as getting smacked over the head, gagged, and thrown into an unmarked car and driven off somewhere and tortured until you comply (it can be but it is in no way required).
That's the beauty of choice really. Choices have consequences. However some choices have less terrible consequences than others. But this is really not the place to go into such things, I imagine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a bit surprised that everyone assumes that the caster is being a douche to the genie. It's worth nothing that when I actually mentioned this, it was not about forcing the genie to do anything.
I am in the middle. There are some rules that could be broken and not really upset balance, but immersion matters for me also. Thinking you can wishbind in my games is not realistic. I know if I was genie, and I survived/escaped the binder would hate life, or either lose their life.I understand you wanted to negoiate with the genie, but the game assumes that binding is a bad thing. That is the difference between planar binding and planar ally. You might ask him after you captured him, but you still captured him first.
It would be like if someone kidnapped you, and then offered you a good deal. Their negotiation terms does not change the fact that you were kidnapped.
Actually, IMHO it would be more like you beamed me up on the enterprise. That's effectively what you're doing if you're doing it without being hostile. I try to place myself in the shoes of someone when I try to think about this things, and the nearest I can come to a conclusion would be similar to an alien encounter without the anal probing.
Basically a space ship coming over someone, beaming them up. Freaky indeed. So you end up in a special room inside an area. The aliens speak a language you understand. "Hey there." they say. "You are currently on our ship in the protection chamber which is for our mutual safety at the moment, because we wanted to ask a favor of you in exchange for some cool alien gifts. See we would like to study the multi-colored substance known as M&Ms and we know you have a pack. Could we convince you to spare some M&Ms in exchange for this piece of solid platinum we picked up? This stuff is just everywhere where we come from, but I understand it's somewhat precious on your world."
SKR said it was a bad thing in the outsider's so I assuming that it was designer intent to have planar binding as hostile, and planar ally as a good thing to do, or at least no bad.
Yeah I am aware that the GM can change the nature of the spell, but in most fantasy stories pulling evil ____ across dimensions and trapping them is seen as a bad thing.
PS:Now I can't find the quote, and I just found it within the past two weeks. If I find it I will post it.
Except, RAW it's nothing like that at all. The spell specifically creates a trap. And not a trap for mutual protection (sure, you can lie and say that, but it's just not true). The spell also allows you to 'compel' the creature to do your bidding. There is no deal making. You can offer something to lessen the sting a bit, bit it is still forced servitude.
Let's back up a minute here. It says you can attempt to compel a service. Even by your own statement "the spell also allows". Now let's think about this for a moment. This is where choice comes into play here. I can shoot you with a gun if I have the means to do so. Choosing to do so is an entirely different matter. It is entirely possible to not shoot you. And entirely possible to not attempt to compel a service from you. Or to give a service that is so minor as to simply break the spell (such as asking them to be present in the room for one second) if you insist that can or may means will and must. Now planar binding has a very obvious purpose and that is forcefully compelling outsiders to do your bidding (such as conjuring up an earth elemental to be your meatshield for a while).
However, saying that is the only thing for which it can be used is just bonkers. A arcane diabolist seeking to earn favor with a powerful evil entity could easily use it to ferry devils across the planar boundaries and into the material plane. Directly contrasting the above, a goodly wizard could call up an angel to ask for advice on something or to ask (not demand) help curing a child's disease because his magic is not capable of doing so. You may even use it as a means of messaging across planar boundaries. If you have allies or even enemies on another plane you could call an emissary to deliver a message (such as calling an angel to report than an evil mcguffen has been destroyed as asked, or calling the court imp of a devil prince to let them know that their evil scheme is going smoothly on this side of the stream).
We can factually see that the spell does not in and of itself harm the individual. It just brings them to a spot. A magic circle in fact and the magic circle may even be optional (dimensional anchor is assuredly optional). It doesn't hurt them. It just moves them. To this location.
Not to mention, the prime material plane to an outsider is not as the enterprise to us. You cannot chose to make your way to the enterprise. Nor have you ever met, or known anyone who has met an alien, nor have you witnessed any evidence that aliens exist or that the enterprise is somewhere out there in the cosmos. Genies know mortals and they interact on a regular basis. We are not some new and exotic creature they will be so excited to meet they forget the fact that you just did the equivalent of dropping a hood over their head as you yank them into your van.
Whether aliens exist is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is that you are teleported somewhere that you were not, and then interact with an individual or individuals from there. If they are not hostile there is no arguing it. How exotic said creature that called you is is entirely irrelevant.
You call an outsider. He knows what a human is.
Outsider: "Da fu--? How did I? Oh, a wizard..."
Wizard: "Hey there. Don't get anxious now. I just wanted to talk with you for a moment."
Outsider: "Do not trifle with me wizard. I was watching Oprah and I find this disturbance irritating. I'm not in the mood to be forcefully compelled by the likes of your kin again."
Wizard: "Not a problem, and no compelling. Merely an offer of mutual benefit. See my friend here is cursed and it's quite a potent one. I understand that your species can eat magic, so I was wondering if you'd help me out by eating the curse from my friend."
Outsider: "Hm, I'm not particularly fond of junk food. What's in it for me?"
Wizard: "Hmm...how about this potion of enlarge person?"
Outsider: "Well that's definitely tastier. Alright, deal."
Wizard: "Thanks. Oh, and when you are done I ask that say I'm done here and you'll go back to watching Oprah."
Outsider: "*burp* Well, that tasted kind of greasy and a bit stale but whatever. Gimme that potion. I'm done here."
Now, you can surely recast the process as you describe, but that's you bending mechanics to fit the vision of your setting. By pure RAW, binding is an evil act, forced upon an unwilling target.
And I'm just calling BS on that. Planar binding is not nor has ever been an evil act by RAW, nor is that you must force it on an unwilling creature. You are patently making things up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only alignment associated with the spell in it's description is Evil.
About as much as the only alignment associated with the spell fireball is evil.
Nowhere in the spell description does it say 'you can request the presence of an outsider to calmly request a boon.' It says, eh, here...to lure a creature from another plane to a specifically prepared trap, which must lie within the spell's range. The called creature is held in the trap until it agrees to perform one service in return for its freedom.You can attempt to compel service because you can also just let the thing sit there and be trapped forever.
And you CAN just release the damn thing. What a novel idea. It's not difficult. Break the circle, cast dispel magic, or whatever.
You can flavor this however you want in your own world, and that's the point of this thread. But RAW, it is a hostile act.
And I simply disagree with you. It can be a hostile act. It is not required however. Anymore than having a spell that teleports someone from somewhere else is innately a hostile act. Because that's what the spell does. Also trap is not innately evil, nor painful. Even D&D/Pathfinder acknowledges this because a room whose doors all shut upon entering is a trap, as is a device that is sprang and sounds an alarm. Both are traps.
There is no sugar coating it. The reason it has a save is precisely because the creature is unwilling. (as a GM, I'd allow you to cast the spell to 'contact' an outsider and to bargain nicely without setting the trap. But as soon as you force them to appear, you're initiating hostilities.)
Good for you, but harmless spells offer saving throws to. It's just assumed that you will willingly fail those saving throws. One could indeed willingly fail the saving throw against planar binding but likely they have no idea what it is, so they'll probably make their save vs it as soon as they sense it.
And the reason for this is that outsiders just generally do not want to deal with mortals. And no, you do not summon an angel with Planar binding. You use Lesser Planar Ally and request aid, you do not demand it.
No, you definitely can. There is no stipulation that you MUST do these things. It is all optional. That's the whole point. Choices. Even when they published stuff specifically about calling outsiders it backs this idea up.
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.
And you're little dialogue is just an example of you RPing it to fit your setting. That's fine. It works. But RAW, that is not how it goes down.
Except that actually IS how it goes down. Nothing I said has anything to do with a setting (other thank joking about Oprah but that's clearly a joke). In this example the wizard cast planar binding and called an outsider. Outsider appears in the the space. The wizard decides he's not going to compel him to preform a service (or arguably his service later is "say I'm done here"). He speaks with said outsider as an NPC, because that's what the outsider is. An NPC. The wizard simply choose to not force the outsider's hand, and the spell never requires him to do so.
RAW, the thing arrives and it is pissed off.
Doesn't say that, and you know it.
You have to role dice at it to get it to calm the hell down and force it to do your bidding.
Doesn't say that either. It does say you may roll dice to force it to do your bidding.
If it escapes the trap it either attacks you or flees.
No, it says it can.
It does not ask for a guided tour of the bridge and some time in your holodeck.
Unless it wants to.