Planar Binding is SLAVERY

[flappeercraft]

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

This is incredibly quotable and I think many people need to see this. May I quote to spread it?

[ExLibrisMortis]

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

Ah yeah, that's Afrocanon I was thinking of (I think, it might just've been mentioned on one of his threads, it's been a while). As I recall, FCI&II are on his list of "books not liked" because they contain a lot of material that randomly contradicts earlier Planescape/2e/3e fluff. Still, can't argue for the purposes of 3.5 RAW.

[Deadline]

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

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

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

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

#1 is plainly evident in the spell description (not sure why folks think it is ambiguous). If you offer enticements or rewards, they can get you bonuses on the Charisma check to compel service, and from an RP perspective can certainly make the creature less likely to seek revenge.

#2 is also clearly spelled out in the spell description. It's the general "indefinite servitude" arrangement I'd argue against. That isn't supported in the spell, and even the OP's quote includes an important (maybe just to me) distinction that the mentioned servitude beyond CL days "required careful negotiation". That's not a blanket "all PB spells can be made into 500 years of general servitude because of this one NPC example!" Well, it's not that without an edited reading that casually disregards part of the text. Also, as you pointed out, there are several "long term binding" spells and effects that purpose built for such an effect.

With regards to RoboEmperor's #3, as long as you keep failing your Charisma check and not rolling a 1, the bound creature can absolutely wait out the clock. It's just highly unlikely that the clock will run out before you succeed on a Charisma check (potentially trivial with enough debuffs piled on the creature), or blow it with a natural 1.

Also, not gonna lie, this gave me a good laugh:

Eternal Bondage and Servitude is NOT an unreasonable command.

Edit - I have to agree with flappeercraft, this is an excellent bit of advice:

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

[Arbane]

More gasoline on the fire: Is enslaving evil Outsiders a bad thing? If they're running your errands, they're not starting cults or eating babies or whatever they do on their own time.

And then there's Tales of Wyre, where the heroes rather unsportingly summoned a Duke of Hell (it was an epic level game), and executed him on the spot while he was stuck in the magic circle.

[Deadline]

More gasoline on the fire: Is enslaving evil Outsiders a bad thing? If they're running your errands, they're not starting cults or eating babies or whatever they do on their own time.

Well, it's certainly an evil act, as the spell gains the [Evil] descriptor, and casting [Evil] spells is an evil act.

And then there's Tales of Wyre, where the heroes rather unsportingly summoned a Duke of Hell (it was an epic level game), and executed him on the spot while he was stuck in the magic circle.

Tales of Wyre is an awesome example of how PB should be used. Shomei the Bargainer, and Mostin the Metagnostic use it to great effect, without it being a simple "serve me forever, slave!" type of spell.

[RoboEmperor]

#1 is plainly evident in the spell description (not sure why folks think it is ambiguous). If you offer enticements or rewards, they can get you bonuses on the Charisma check to compel service, and from an RP perspective can certainly make the creature less likely to seek revenge.

The folks I talked to claimed "free service is an unreasonable command" and therefore rewards are mandatory. Clearly against someone who doesn't have a maddening bias against the spell everything is unambiguous and requires no proof.

#2 is also clearly spelled out in the spell description. It's the general "indefinite servitude" arrangement I'd argue against. That isn't supported in the spell, and even the OP's quote includes an important (maybe just to me) distinction that the mentioned servitude beyond CL days "required careful negotiation". That's not a blanket "all PB spells can be made into 500 years of general servitude because of this one NPC example!" Well, it's not that without an edited reading that casually disregards part of the text. Also, as you pointed out, there are several "long term binding" spells and effects that purpose built for such an effect.

Again the folks I talked to say "clean my toilet is a non-open ended task. Guard this place for 10 days is an open-ended task". To you it's clear but to them it's not.

My goal wasn't indefinite servitude as you and Psyren thought.

With regards to RoboEmperor's #3, as long as you keep failing your Charisma check and not rolling a 1, the bound creature can absolutely wait out the clock. It's just highly unlikely that the clock will run out before you succeed on a Charisma check (potentially trivial with enough debuffs piled on the creature), or blow it with a natural 1.

That's not what I was saying. The folks I talked to say "They know the magic circle can only last 15 days so they're gonna block their ears and not give you a charisma check, ever, and then kill you after the duration ends."

In my case I use Surge of Fortune for a natural 20 so planar binding "negotiations" end within 1 round of binding.

Also, not gonna lie, this gave me a good laugh:

It's not my fault WotC wanted sentient elementals to accept bondage for eternity.

Edit - I have to agree with flappeercraft, this is an excellent bit of advice:

His advice is all well and good in theory but in practice it doesn't work. I dare you to try and convince Fizban to let his players bind powerful minions for free because WotC wanted players to be able to do so. Someone who hates spellcasters having the ability to bind monsters that are stronger than summon monster's monsters for free is never gonna change his mind. At least with the these quotes you avoid an argument and just go your separate ways while curing a DM's delusion along the way.

More gasoline on the fire: Is enslaving evil Outsiders a bad thing? If they're running your errands, they're not starting cults or eating babies or whatever they do on their own time.

And then there's Tales of Wyre, where the heroes rather unsportingly summoned a Duke of Hell (it was an epic level game), and executed him on the spot while he was stuck in the magic circle.

Is raping a rapist a bad thing? The answer is yes, so it is yes here as well. If you enslave them for good then you're neutral at best.

[ezekielraiden]

This is incredibly quotable and I think many people need to see this. May I quote to spread it?

Feel free. Give my name as Ezekiel or Zeke when you do (though the username is fine as part of a quite back to the post).

[Deadline]

The folks I talked to claimed "free service is an unreasonable command" and therefore rewards are mandatory. Clearly against someone who doesn't have a maddening bias against the spell everything is unambiguous and requires no proof.

It's possible they were conflating it with Planar Ally. Alternatively, assuming that you can freely PB without consequence seems to be counter to the spell. So while you won't have to pay to get a "free" slave with the spell, there are longer-term implications that the spell leaves to the DM to interpret. So perhaps that is the "cost" they may have been considering?

Your recommendation of ironing out problem spells like this one and your intents for the game before hand is solidly good advice. All gaming groups should have a "session 0" or "producer's meeting" or "interviews" to get worldbuilding and problematic rules interps out of the way in advance. Just make sure it isn't an excuse for you to browbeat your DM and nurse a pet grudge.

Again the folks I talked to say "clean my toilet is a non-open ended task. Guard this place for 10 days is an open-ended task". To you it's clear but to them it's not.

As per the spell, tasks that a creature cannot complete under their own power last for your CL in days, with the possibility of longer terms for specific bargained arrangements (which seems firmly in DM interpretation territory). I think that's probably going to be where you and I would disagree. I suspect you'd try and claim that a CL 10 caster could easily get a PB creature to "Guard this place for a year" with a single casting and no bargained arrangement. Please, correct me if I'm wrong on that.

My goal wasn't indefinite servitude as you and Psyren thought.

I appear to have misinterpreted your opening post, where you seemed to be arguing for exactly that. It's still unclear to me, but if you are saying that you don't think that's a viable use of the spell, my bad.

That's not what I was saying. The folks I talked to say "They know the magic circle can only last 15 days so they're gonna block their ears and not give you a charisma check, ever, and then kill you after the duration ends."

Well, no, it's clearly spelled out in the spell description that you get one chance per 24 hour period to try and compel them into service.

It's not my fault WotC wanted sentient elementals to accept bondage for eternity.

I admit that my Eberron lore isn't entirely up to snuff, but I doubt the veracity of that statement (on multiple levels). Also, while Planar Binding may be the spell that is used in the manufacture of Elemental Airships (the Lightning Rail uses them too, right?), the more permanent nature of the magic seems to be tied to the item creation rules rather than straight PB. So trying to claim that it somehow applies in the general sense to PB would be problematic.

His advice is all well and good in theory but in practice it doesn't work.

Not only have I seen it work in practice, it is one of the only things I've found effective in the long-term. I've seen the method you espouse not only fail to provide results (relatively consistently, in fact), it actively makes the discussion it's used in worse. ezekielraiden's advice is sound, and I've seen it work quite often.

That said, if you believe there is one "sure-fire" method that will always work to convince another person, I have disappointing news for you.

[ezekielraiden]

His advice is all well and good in theory but in practice it doesn't work. I dare you to try and convince Fizban to let his players bind powerful minions for free because WotC wanted players to be able to do so. Someone who hates spellcasters having the ability to bind monsters that are stronger than summon monster's monsters for free is never gonna change his mind. At least with the these quotes you avoid an argument and just go your separate ways while curing a DM's delusion along the way.

Whether it is possible to show someone a better way to be right is outside the purview of my advice. As you say, some people simply will not change no matter what you do, in which case it seems strange to me that you conclude "therefore I should express myself with hostility and aggression, and nigh on guarantee an angry separation." I don't really see your information, no matter how complete and well-cited, "dispelling" any notions of this DM, since their behavior will remain unchanged. (Further, as we have seen already in this thread, there are perfectly rational, if debatable, grounds for asserting that the evidence doesn't apply, exactly as I said earlier.)

From what you've said here, it sounds like you really have no hope or prediction of convincing, so that can be set aside. If all you care about is "proof" that someone is inaccurately reading a rule or the like, there's no convincing involved, just an expression of difference of interpretation and, if that difference is unbridgeable, separation. No need for hostility or browbeating. Perhaps I am making an inappropriate assumption, but I do assume that courtesy is preferable to hostility in effectively all situations. Why make enemies without need?

Is raping a rapist a bad thing? The answer is yes, so it is yes here as well. If you enslave them for good then you're neutral at best.

Is kidnapping a kidnapper a bad thing? According to most laws I know, it is not, as long as official law enforcement gets involved because a law was broken ("citizen's arrest" is a thing, and that's basically legally-justified kidnapping.) Further, is prison labor a bad thing? Properly speaking this can be seen as a form of slavery, but many US states make use of it and it can even be beneficial (e.g. teaching trade skills to inmates so they can get jobs when they get out, giving them activity instead of mindless inactivity, etc.) The analogy is too laser-focused to hold, so it surely requires further analysis before I can agree; I need to see *why* these two crimes are more closely linked than others, and why I shouldn't draw an analogy to prisoner labor.

[RoboEmperor]

Whether it is possible to show someone a better way to be right is outside the purview of my advice. As you say, some people simply will not change no matter what you do, in which case it seems strange to me that you conclude "therefore I should express myself with hostility and aggression, and nigh on guarantee an angry separation." I don't really see your information, no matter how complete and well-cited, "dispelling" any notions of this DM, since their behavior will remain unchanged. (Further, as we have seen already in this thread, there are perfectly rational, if debatable, grounds for asserting that the evidence doesn't apply, exactly as I said earlier.)

From what you've said here, it sounds like you really have no hope or prediction of convincing, so that can be set aside. If all you care about is "proof" that someone is inaccurately reading a rule or the like, there's no convincing involved, just an expression of difference of interpretation and, if that difference is unbridgeable, separation. No need for hostility or browbeating. Perhaps I am making an inappropriate assumption, but I do assume that courtesy is preferable to hostility in effectively all situations. Why make enemies without need?

You assume we weren't enemies at this point. Like I said in earlier posts if a disagreement happens during the interview process I just say we're not a good fit and leave, no hostility, but if a DM pulls this mid-campaign and destroys my entire reason for playing the game you bet I'm gonna be hostile. Before I hunted down these quotes I had a DM change his mind and when I finally hunted down the quotes and proved him wrong he started getting angry and did exactly what the other people on this thread have said which was "I don't give a damn about the rules" at which point we are enemies and I will leave. I have no idea what instigated the change of heart especially since I DISCLOSED EVERYTHING I WAS GONNA DO BEFORE THE GAME BEGAN and he gave the OK.

Is kidnapping a kidnapper a bad thing? According to most laws I know, it is not, as long as official law enforcement gets involved because a law was broken ("citizen's arrest" is a thing, and that's basically legally-justified kidnapping.) Further, is prison labor a bad thing? Properly speaking this can be seen as a form of slavery, but many US states make use of it and it can even be beneficial (e.g. teaching trade skills to inmates so they can get jobs when they get out, giving them activity instead of mindless inactivity, etc.) The analogy is too laser-focused to hold, so it surely requires further analysis before I can agree; I need to see *why* these two crimes are more closely linked than others, and why I shouldn't draw an analogy to prisoner labor.

Prison labor is a bad thing. The goal of civilized prisons is to rehabilitate its residents, not punish. The goal of uncivilized prisons is to punish. It depends on your crime but in civilized prisons prisoners have access to libraries, education, exercise, therapy, etc. and people genuinely try to reform you into a decent human being while prisons in uncivilized countries is slave labor, rape, corpses being fed to dogs, etc. and have no intention of helping you. Is this a good thing?

If forced labor is bad for good people forced labor is bad for bad people. If someone kidnaps you and tortures you, is it a good thing if you kidnap him and torture him back? Or is it a good thing to rehabilitate him (assuming you have the ability to rehabilitate him) and forgive him afterwards for the crimes he committed against you?

Jews being worked in metalworking shops during Hitler's reign was prison labor. If the Jews started working the Nazis to death and killed them at their leisure and entertainment is that a good thing?

A lot of people claim Sanctified the Wicked is an evil spell but I disagree. It gives a sociopathic psychopath the ability to feel empathy, gives it a conscience, gives it the ability to differentiate between right and wrong, and gives it the ability to realize all the horrors it caused, and as a result voluntarily rehabilitates over the course of a year and atones, yet other people say this is no different than mindrape. Well the fact is free-will is an illusion, and 100% of your actions are determined by your personality and environment, so if a spell changes your personality to good you end up being good. Whether this is mindrape level evil or not, whatever. Just note that you are literally saving him from an eternity in the hells or abyss with this "mindrape".

In any case enslaving other creatures is always bad, whether the victim deserves it or not just like how murder and execution is worse than prison and rehabilitation.

Enslaving Fiends for good doesn't mean you're evil, because you're trying to do good, but you are committing very evil acts regularly so you're not good.

[Goaty14]

Enslaving Fiends for good doesn't mean you're evil, because you're trying to do good, but you are committing very evil acts regularly so you're not good.

Counterpoint: The Malconvoker. According to RAW, if you go read a lil non-magical book and gain a level in a certain PrC, then binding (read: "enslaving") evil outsiders and telling them to go slay other evil does not make you evil. Thus, you're not entirely correct here.

I'd argue that doing evil stuff (i.e Genocide, Mass Slavery) to evil outsiders is not an evil act because moral codes don't apply to beings of "evil incarnate". All of your previous examples deal with real-world people or creatures that aren't irredeemably evil.

[RoboEmperor]

Counterpoint: The Malconvoker. According to RAW, if you go read a lil non-magical book and gain a level in a certain PrC, then binding (read: "enslaving") evil outsiders and telling them to go slay other evil does not make you evil. Thus, you're not entirely correct here.

Malconvoker was not included in my quotes because that PrC is 100% consensual negotiations. The Malconvoker maybe lying through his teeth but still, it's trickery not slavery.

[Deophaun]

You can't enslave Outsiders, because Outsiders aren't people. Of course, neither are gnomes, but once I set them to work digging out the top layer of that was-at-the-time-dormant caldera under their nest, you wouldn't believe how many would-be freedom fighters I had to explain that little concept to. And by "explain," I mean throw into the now-burning caldera that I'm building my obsidian fortress in. Really people. There are rats being mistreated in alleyways all across the kingdom and this is what you choose to sacrifice your lives for?

[Crake]

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

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

This has pretty much been the case for planar binding in 99% of my games. Usually, if summoning a devil, they planar bind an imp, ask for a name, use sending to contact that person to set up a time, then planar bind to meet, but the same works for any kind of outsider, coure for eladrin, musteval for guardinials, quasits for demons, lantern archons for archons, and so on so on.

Very rarely is it used in my games as a method of forcing slavery, despite the fact that we all agree it CAN, it's just too dangerous. Because, sure, maybe you can keep binding the same outsider over and over, but that outsider doesn't exist in a vaccuum, they have friends AND enemies looking for them, and if you're housing them, well, expect both to come looking for you.

[RoboEmperor]

Very rarely is it used in my games as a method of forcing slavery, despite the fact that we all agree it CAN, it's just too dangerous. Because, sure, maybe you can keep binding the same outsider over and over, but that outsider doesn't exist in a vaccuum, they have friends AND enemies looking for them, and if you're housing them, well, expect both to come looking for you.

Fiends have no allies who will help them in their time of need. Angels yes but not fiends, both Demon and Devil, because even Pit Fiends and Balors are expendable with millions of underlings looking to usurp their position.

[Psyren]

More gasoline on the fire: Is enslaving evil Outsiders a bad thing? If they're running your errands, they're not starting cults or eating babies or whatever they do on their own time.

For the most part, they wouldn't be doing that stuff anyway - they can't just come over whenever they feel like it, otherwise the material would be drowning in infinite demons already and mortal life would've been extinguished ages ago. But conversely, nearly every demon that has gone on a tear through the Material and needed to be put down by adventurers was there because some hapless mage was sure that their binding was foolproof and routine, right up until their heads got torn off their shoulders.

[Keltest]

Fiends have no allies who will help them in their time of need. Angels yes but not fiends, both Demon and Devil, because even Pit Fiends and Balors are expendable with millions of underlings looking to usurp their position.

There are plenty of denizens of the lower planes who are willing to fight to protect the status quo if they benefit from it.

[RoboEmperor]

There are plenty of denizens of the lower planes who are willing to fight to protect the status quo if they benefit from it.

Do you have an example? From what I read a dead pit fiend or balor makes a literal 0 difference in baator or the abyss. I mean look at the bloodwar and the casualties caused by Orcus's undead horde against other Demons. The death count is incredibly high and none of that matters so absolutely no demon would give a damn if a marilith or a balor went AWOL. Demons also serve you solely so they can kill stuff in the material realm, devils don't mind being pawns because they'll win in the long term and damn your soul to baator and if they don't the devil is blamed for their weakness and demoted rather than the spellcaster being hunted. In fact the spellcaster would most likely be unharmed as he is a known devil trafficker and therefore an opportunity to spread evil.

In no scenario do I see a rescue team coming for either fiend race.

[ElFi]

More gasoline on the fire: Is enslaving evil Outsiders a bad thing? If they're running your errands, they're not starting cults or eating babies or whatever they do on their own time.

And then there's Tales of Wyre, where the heroes rather unsportingly summoned a Duke of Hell (it was an epic level game), and executed him on the spot while he was stuck in the magic circle.

Planescape: Torment leans towards "yes" regarding your first question, in my experience. There's a demon in that setting bound by a fallen angel to perform good acts until his contract runs out. You can exploit the contract's wording to get him to do all sorts of stuff for you, but doing so is considered an Evil act (regardless of how you benefit from ordering him around) because you're basically taking advantage of a helpless person's kindness. Violating a creature's free will to benefit yourself regardless of said creature's personal moral standing seems to be a Bad Thing in that case, it seems.

And on the other hand, there's the Order of the Stick, which seems to hold that semi-coercing (Belkar) or mind controlling (Yokyok) evil beings into performing good acts, safety of life and limb be damned, is A-Okay for good guys to do as long as it's for a good cause. Mr. Burlew is by no means an absolute authority on the nature of alignment in D&D settings, but I tend to trust his judgement more often than not, though I find the Dominated Kobold subplot to be more tasteless than funny more often than not (a rarity in the comic for me).

[ezekielraiden]

Planescape: Torment leans towards "yes" regarding your first question, in my experience. There's a demon in that setting bound by a fallen angel to perform good acts until his contract runs out. You can exploit the contract's wording to get him to do all sorts of stuff for you, but doing so is considered an Evil act (regardless of how you benefit from ordering him around) because you're basically taking advantage of a helpless person's kindness. Violating a creature's free will to benefit yourself regardless of said creature's personal moral standing seems to be a Bad Thing in that case, it seems.

While I agree with your PS:T statement as given...YOU, The Nameless One, didn't make the contract, so it doesn't explicitly say that the act itself is evil. It *does* show that taking advantage of someone who can't stop you is evil, but that's not strictly the same thing. We don't know at what point in Trias' life the contract was made, so we can't even necessarily conclude that it's evil because Trias is evil.

That said, I'm certainly sympathetic to the notion. I prefer to uphold a pretty high standard of conduct, so hinky shenanigans are already suspect to me. I guess what I'd say is, I *might* be convinced that it was okay in very unusual circumstances, but as a rule of thumb, anything that enforces choices on another being is Not Good. E.g. if a forced Planar Binding were the only way to save an innocent child's life? A brief, focused effort would be tolerable but uncomfortable. Certainly not okay with purely self-beneficial uses (though just because it *can* benefit you doesn't necessarily mean that's the intent, which matters.)

[Deadline]

Fiends have no allies who will help them in their time of need. Angels yes but not fiends, both Demon and Devil, because even Pit Fiends and Balors are expendable with millions of underlings looking to usurp their position.

Where are you getting this from? That seems counter to how the Hells work, and despite their chaotic nature, even demons band together for safety and mutual survival. It's a pretty safe bet that any given fiend is beholden to, allies with, the property of, or valuable to another fiend or outsider. Assuming that no one will miss a fiend, especially a powerful one, is ... not in line with any of the setting material I've seen. Is there a setting where this is seen to be common?

[RoboEmperor]

Where are you getting this from? That seems counter to how the Hells work, and despite their chaotic nature, even demons band together for safety and mutual survival. It's a pretty safe bet that any given fiend is beholden to, allies with, the property of, or valuable to another fiend or outsider. Assuming that no one will miss a fiend, especially a powerful one, is ... not in line with any of the setting material I've seen. Is there a setting where this is seen to be common?

Fiendish Codex II.

Near the top of the hierarchy are the greater devils, which occupy positions of authority in the infernal power structure. The most powerful of the greater devils are the pit fi ends, which manage diabolical forces in every enterprise from the Blood War to the corruption of entire nations. Just below the nine Lords of Hell are a handful of unique devils known as dukes. Whether presently scheming in this direction or not, all dukes of Hell dream of the day when they can displace one of the current Lords of Hell and rule an entire layer.
While entertaining forbidden thoughts of ultimate power, dukes and pit fiends must in turn look out for their own positions. Other greater devils are always scheming to advance through the hierarchy, and the elevation of a new pit fiend is usually accompanied by the demotion of its disfavored counterpart. Furthermore, while the most powerful devils have frequent chances to prove themselves and continue their upward ascent, they are also exposed to the direct scrutiny of their lords. Punishment for failure is invariably swift and terrible, so greater devils live in constant terror of summary demotion. They take their fears out on their inferiors, who in turn bully those below them, and so on. This chain of merciless subordination continues all the way down to the pathetic, mindless lemures, which have no inferiors to lash out at.
...
Most demotions are punishments for failure. No meritocracy is more demanding or ruthless than Baator. Those who fail to perform soon find themselves trapped in the forms of wretched nupperibos and assigned to the most degrading duties available. (The exact nature of those tasks is best left to the imagination.)
...
However, even devils that perform their duties in exemplary fashion and obey all the rules can still be unfairly demoted. Political demotions occur when a devil’s superiors fear its ascent. Thus, the secret to successful advancement lies in the careful fl attery and cultivation of one’s superiors. A clever devil reveals the true extent of its ambition only after its knife, metaphorical or literal, has been plunged between its former patron’s vertebrae.

Does this strike you as "Lets form an alliance so we can both survive since this is the smart thing to do" or "At the first opportunity I'm gonna sabotage/frame/blame everyone around me even if they're innocent just so I can get them demoted and advance the hierarchy"?

It's not just that passage, it's the whole tone of that book.

So if a Pit Fiend finds himself bound to a mortal, are his fellow peers and subordinates going to come to his aid to gain his favor OR claim that the Pit Fiend is an incompetent **** that got enslaved by a mortal and petition the Archdevil that he deserves demotion?

It's one of the reasons it's better to be good than evil. No one will help you if you're evil. No one. You are alone.

[Nifft]

Well, yeah. That’s the entire point of Planar Binding. You get a free slave.

I just want to enjoy the delightful irony of the phrase "a free slave".

If you were seen in the market holding up a sign which read "FREE SLAVES", you'd probably see at least two very different responses.

Fiendish Codex II.

Does this strike you as "Lets form an alliance so we can both survive since this is the smart thing to do" or "At the first opportunity I'm gonna sabotage/frame/blame everyone around me even if they're innocent just so I can get them demoted and advance the hierarchy"?

It's not just that passage, it's the whole tone of that book.

How can you betray someone if you're never allies?

You're thinking is far too shallow. Fiends ally all the time. They keep their plan-to-betray friends close, and their plan-to-murder enemies closer.

They all need allies because if they're ever perceived as being alone, they immediately become a target for other fiends who have (temporary) allies. There's power in numbers, and fiends know a thing or two about using power -- and moreover, they earnestly and unabashedly like power.

[RoboEmperor]

I just want to enjoy the delightful irony of the phrase "a free slave".

If you were seen in the market holding up a sign which read "FREE SLAVES", you'd probably see at least two very different responses.



How can you betray someone if you're never allies?

You're thinking is far too shallow. Fiends ally all the time. They keep their plan-to-betray friends close, and their plan-to-murder enemies closer.

They all need allies because if they're ever perceived as being alone, they immediately become a target for other fiends who have (temporary) allies. There's power in numbers, and fiends know a thing or two about using power -- and moreover, they earnestly and unabashedly like power.

I never said they don't ally. I said no one will help them. Including their allies. So the Pit Fiend bound to a mortal will be on the receiving end of "plan-to-betray friends" and "plan-to-murder enemies" of every single devil that knows his name.

edit: I did use the word alliance, but I didn't mean it as an alliance in name only.

[Saintheart]

More gasoline on the fire: Is enslaving evil Outsiders a bad thing?

Chaotic Good says yes, Lawful Good says no provided due process was followed, Neutral Good says not as long as they serve a purpose in doing so.

[Florian]

Ah, Planar Binding....

"Re: Planar Binding is SLAVERY"

Nope. PB is exactly what is says on the tin, or rather, in the spell description: It´s a setup that allows a PC to summon and haggle with an NPC. Unlike Planar Ally, that includes a "force" and a "bribe" option, with the mechanical representation of a CHA check or dishing out the gp.

The actual funny thing is, the spell is both wholly self-contained and absolutely unusable by RAW, because you always need an NPC for it, along with the whole parameters what "acceptable" and all the related stuff would mean for exactly that NPC, what forms the bribes would take and so on.

What's funny, tho, is that the mechanics of the spell are so wonky. Basically, if you read at is "one ritual, packaged into one spell" and treat it as exactly that "one spell", the implication this has on the interaction with other spells is quite astonishing.

[Crake]

If you bind a fiend, 9/10 you've just stolen someone's property or underling. Even a pit fiend has a master, and when that pit fiend suddenly goes missing, people are gonna start asking questions. They don't just carry on like he never existed, even if some of them would certainly like to TRY and make that happen. The problem isnt with his allies at his immediate level, it's with the people ABOVE him, who have delegated tasks to him, which he is now currently not performing. And they're angry that he's not performing them. Angry at the pit fiend, but also angry at YOU. Devils especially also keep a lot of secrets, if someone goes missing but isn't confirmed dead, then people are going to start looking for them even if it's just to clean up a loose end, which very well may lead them to you, who now quite possibly knows some secrets, and must also be cleaned up.

[Keltest]

I never said they don't ally. I said no one will help them. Including their allies. So the Pit Fiend bound to a mortal will be on the receiving end of "plan-to-betray friends" and "plan-to-murder enemies" of every single devil that knows his name.

edit: I did use the word alliance, but I didn't mean it as an alliance in name only.

All it takes to motivate a fiend to help is to see a rival benefit more than he does from the absence of the bigger fiend. If middle management (who hates you) suddenly replaces upper management (who doesn't hate you as much), that's bad for you personally. On top of there being potential rewards if you can successfully free this guy.

[Selion]

Good boys don't enforce the magic circle with dimensional anchor

[Braininthejar2]

Of course it is. That's why they get to rip out your spleen if you do it wrong.