Planar Binding is SLAVERY

[Oblivionsmurf]

Most spells are poorly worded, I don't think d&d is the most fitting game for a strict interpretation of rules. Enforcing Raw someone could say that a creature able to fly could climb the cylinder hundreds of feets (it won't help to get free from the circle anyway). The spell is written to resemble the thematic pact with a devil, according to folklore, and it is one of the best written spells from a narrative perspective.

On the one hand, I agree with this (RAW always has to be a bit flexible). It's even worse with Planar Binding because, in the cylinder model, a Pit Fiend could presumably make a quick Knowledge (The Planes) check, then Greater Teleport some ridiculous distance straight up (enough to know it'll be in clear sky), and then just spend the next 14,400 rounds * caster level greater teleporting to random locations up or down the relevant plane, just to avoid having to make a deal.

On the other hand, part of the point of this thread is to establish RAW mechanics for Planar Binding, so that it is less subject to DM fiat (or at least so the DM and players both know what to expect in the absence of any house rules).

[Oblivionsmurf]

As an aside, if Dragon Magazine is allowed in anyone's games, you should absolutely check out Dragon #336, which has a whole host of spells that improve Planar Binding. One spell in particular (Exaction) allows you to make varying degrees of sacrifice to gain a small bonus on your Charisma check and, more importantly, a creature's willing service to the full extent of your instructions if you succeed on the check. The smallest sacrifice is 50gp / HD of the creature, which seems like a small price to pay for a minion for one day per caster level (a Pit Fiend would only be 900gp!).

[ElFi]

I'll agree with you that the dominated Yukyuk really rubbed me the wrong way overall, but I took it as emblematic of Belkar's outright depravity and V's overall low moral fiber (remember, this was before V got hit in the face with "Holy crap, I'm a genocidal maniac! Maybe I should clean up my act?"). As for the Free Trap Disarming While-U-Wait part, Haley does call Roy out on the hypocrisy of it. And even he only goes along because he thinks V is going to order him to actually search for traps properly and not just take the punches to the face. (As for Haley going along with it, I'll chalk that up to a temporary relapse to her previous self, brought on part by an understandable desire to avoid Ouchies.)

Belkar's a somewhat more complicated case. On the one hand, Roy is acting as an enforcer/jailer in an effort to curb Belkar's bad behavior, but he's also not keeping Belkar there in chains either. Plus it means that the brunt of Belkar's bad behavior is basically borne by those tough enough to take it (himself, V, etc.) _{Dang, I almost had the alliteration go through the whole sentence there.} So that's less clear on exactly where exactly that falls on the grand scale of justice.

Again, asking or even compelling somebody to do something dangerous is not necessarily equivalent to an evil act. If there were malice or cruelty in it (and in Belkar's case there was, I'm not sure if V really felt that way) then it would tend towards evil, but if the person has done things that are deserving of death and you're just making their death serve a greater purpose, I would argue that is not inherently an evil act........
ntly an officially Lawful Good act.

Oh, hey, people actually responded to a thing that I said!

I, personally, don't think that coercing somebody to perform a Good act is in and of itself a Good act, on the simple basis because the whole concept is founded in coercion (whether by threat of force or outright mind-control, the specifics are mostly irrelevant) and that by itself is not a Good thing to do. I don't think that Miko coercing the Order into following her to Azure City, and essentially browbeating half of them into fighting off an ogre band along the way, would absolutely qualify as Good acts in-universe even though taken out of context (legitimate civil authority arrests suspected criminals for a pending trial, then makes use of resources at hand to stop criminal group threatening civilians) they certainly could be seen as such.

But that's a debate full of subjective opinions on the nature of alignment, not to mention framed through Order of the Stick, and this isn't a thread or a subforum for any of those descriptors. It's not a thread I'd personally want to start, either, if the current condition of this one is anything to go by.

[AMFV]

Oh, hey, people actually responded to a thing that I said!

I, personally, don't think that coercing somebody to perform a Good act is in and of itself a Good act, on the simple basis because the whole concept is founded in coercion (whether by threat of force or outright mind-control, the specifics are mostly irrelevant) and that by itself is not a Good thing to do. I don't think that Miko coercing the Order into following her to Azure City, and essentially browbeating half of them into fighting off an ogre band along the way, would absolutely qualify as Good acts in-universe even though taken out of context (legitimate civil authority arrests suspected criminals for a pending trial, then makes use of resources at hand to stop criminal group threatening civilians) they certainly could be seen as such.

The thing is that freedom of action as opposed to coerced action isn't a matter for Good and Evil in D&D. At least not in 3.5. It's a matter for Law and Chaos. If you are forcing somebody to do something good, I would argue that generally speaking that's Good. At least as far as D&D goes. I mean we have a spell that is not only good but Exalted that involves forcing a creature to change completely and irrevocably. Acting counter to freedom isn't acting counter to Goodness in D&D. And in many other philosophies.

But that's a debate full of subjective opinions on the nature of alignment, not to mention framed through Order of the Stick, and this isn't a thread or a subforum for any of those descriptors. It's not a thread I'd personally want to start, either, if the current condition of this one is anything to go by.

Well we have some objective things present in that sort of discussion, and those tend to suggest that coercing somebody is Lawful, but not necessarily Good or Evil, depending on the exact nature of the coercive acts taking place.

[fallensavior]

If I have you in a tiny cage that's at most 2 ft wide and long and 6ft tall, and I'm standing outside the cage with a gun to your head, and tell you to be my slave, how would you respond?

Try to win initiative and shoot you first. Since you so conveniently trapped me here with these magic rocket launchers called hands.

As written, Planar Binding is neither safe, nor guaranteed to succeed. "Casting this spell attempts a dangerous act:" (PHB 262)

[Mordaedil]

Of course, if you have Improved Initative, Primal Instinct and Nerveskitter, going first probably isn't going to be a problem.

I have a few questions for someone with more experience using these spells. I have a sorcerer with the Celestial bloodline feat printed in Dragon Compendium, which disallows me from casting Evil spells. It also gives me Magic Circle against Evil for free.

So if I get Planar Binding at a later level, if I desire to capture an Efreeti for the 3 wishes they can grant once per day, I'd have to cast that free MCaE spell, but can I still summon an Efreeti? They are Lawful Evil, but do not have the Evil subtype, only the Fire subtype, so is that still open? Since they know Plane shift, I assume I still need to cast Dimension Anchor, would a scroll work as well as anything? Is it better for a sorcerer to cast Planar binding from a scroll rather than learning the spell, given the limitations?

[RoboEmperor]

Of course, if you have Improved Initative, Primal Instinct and Nerveskitter, going first probably isn't going to be a problem.

That example was a real life example. But if someone thought that a cage was the magical example instead of magic circle then that person is half assing the discussion and I don't want to waste effort talking with a half asser.

I have a few questions for someone with more experience using these spells. I have a sorcerer with the Celestial bloodline feat printed in Dragon Compendium, which disallows me from casting Evil spells. It also gives me Magic Circle against Evil for free.

So if I get Planar Binding at a later level, if I desire to capture an Efreeti for the 3 wishes they can grant once per day, I'd have to cast that free MCaE spell, but can I still summon an Efreeti? They are Lawful Evil, but do not have the Evil subtype, only the Fire subtype, so is that still open? Since they know Plane shift, I assume I still need to cast Dimension Anchor, would a scroll work as well as anything? Is it better for a sorcerer to cast Planar binding from a scroll rather than learning the spell, given the limitations?

You can't call an efreeti. "When you use a calling spell to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type. " Nothing about subtypes. Efreeti is a lawful evil creature so the spell becomes a lawful and evil spell. A scroll of dimensional anchor would work. Using a scroll of planar binding is unadvisable since because of the will save you're going to need to cast it several times and a scroll's save dc is the bare minimum possible.

If you want a free efreeti i'd suggest you go the simulacrum route by buying a scroll of simulacrum.

[Crake]

You can't call an efreeti. "When you use a calling spell to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it is a spell of that type. " Nothing about subtypes. Efreeti is a lawful evil creature so the spell becomes a lawful and evil spell. A scroll of dimensional anchor would work. Using a scroll of planar binding is unadvisable since because of the will save you're going to need to cast it several times and a scroll's save dc is the bare minimum possible.

If you want a free efreeti i'd suggest you go the simulacrum route by buying a scroll of simulacrum.

Well, hold on a second. Efreeti lack alignment subtypes, so yes, while you could call they an "evil creature", that doesn't exclude the possibility of summoning an efreeti who doesn't hold an evil alignment, thanks to the 99% rule. In fact, if you are incapable of casting evil spells, by this ruling, you would ALWAYS get a non-evil efreeti (unless they don't exist by the DM's ruling). It would be the same as calling tieflings evil creatures, you can certainly get non-evil tieflings.

However, consider it from another angle: Air, earth, fire and water are all impossible to denote by any other means beside subtype. Would it not therefore be prudent to expect the same result from alignments? Alternatively, you give people unable to cast evil spells a uniquely strong ability to summon non-evil versions of creatures like efreeti using some kind of celestial filter I guess?

[RoboEmperor]

Well, hold on a second. Efreeti lack alignment subtypes, so yes, while you could call they an "evil creature", that doesn't exclude the possibility of summoning an efreeti who doesn't hold an evil alignment, thanks to the 99% rule. In fact, if you are incapable of casting evil spells, by this ruling, you would ALWAYS get a non-evil efreeti (unless they don't exist by the DM's ruling). It would be the same as calling tieflings evil creatures, you can certainly get non-evil tieflings.

However, consider it from another angle: Air, earth, fire and water are all impossible to denote by any other means beside subtype. Would it not therefore be prudent to expect the same result from alignments? Alternatively, you give people unable to cast evil spells a uniquely strong ability to summon non-evil versions of creatures like efreeti using some kind of celestial filter I guess?

It was my understanding that you can only call a typical creature or a named creature. An unusual chaotic good efreeti is not typical and you wouldn't know the name of one so you can't call it. So no advanced hd creature, no aasimar with class levels, MM entry exclusive unless it's a unique being and you know its name.

I guess it's up to a DM whether a lawful evil creature without the lawful or evil subtypes is a "lawful evil creature." Just because all air creatures have the air subtype does not mean all lawful evil creatures have the lawful evil subtype imo. And again the text does not specify subtype.

[Crake]

It was my understanding that you can only call a typical creature or a named creature. An unusual chaotic good efreeti is not typical and you wouldn't know the name of one so you can't call it. So no advanced hd creature, no aasimar with class levels, MM entry exclusive unless it's a unique being and you know its name.

I guess it's up to a DM whether a lawful evil creature without the lawful or evil subtypes is a "lawful evil creature." Just because all air creatures have the air subtype does not mean all lawful evil creatures have the lawful evil subtype imo. And again the text does not specify subtype.

I don't see anywhere that it says the creature is typical for it's kind in all way, the way other spells denote that. The creature you call could well be advanced (within the limits of the spell of course, lesser planar binding cannot call forth a 12HD succubus for example), have the elite array, have class levels and so on. The person doing the calling has no control over this though. They cannot say "I wish to summon a tiefling with 6 levels in sorcerer" they can only say "I wish to summon a tiefling" or "I wish to summon this specific tiefling who I can refer to by their proper name".

As both a DM and a player, I've both allowed and been allowed to even summon templated creatures, like a half celestial pegasus. After all, the spell says "The kind of creature to be bound must be known and stated." A half celestial pegasus is a kind of creature, it is known to exist, and is stated by the caster. No other criteria necessary.

[Mystral]

I had this debate with more than one person. Way more.

And you still need another debate on this?

[Mordaedil]

Clicking the link on the SRD also takes you to the Evil subtype for what it is worth, and the spell specifices creature, not alignment.

[Crake]

Clicking the link on the SRD also takes you to the Evil subtype for what it is worth, and the spell specifices creature, not alignment.

The link on the SRD isn't actually worth anything. Many of the links were done interpretively, by an automated process, and none of the links are supported by the actual SRD itself, they're all just either automated or the assumption of the site creators.

[Mordaedil]

The link on the SRD isn't actually worth anything. Many of the links were done interpretively, by an automated process, and none of the links are supported by the actual SRD itself, they're all just either automated or the assumption of the site creators.

If anything, it's an indicator that there is some through-thought on the subject. It would regardless have been easy for the designers of D&D to have attached the Evil subtype to Efreeti, if they were intended for it to matter for the purposes of summoning. Context it is put into matters and as you said, Evil, good, chaotic and lawful being listed alongside water, air, earth and fire hints heavily at subtypes mattering, not the given alignment of the subject.

But then again, I am asking because I am not sure if I am interpreting it correctly. Worse case the DM could shut me down anyway, at which point I guess I'd have to summon a djinni?

[RoboEmperor]

If anything, it's an indicator that there is some through-thought on the subject. It would regardless have been easy for the designers of D&D to have attached the Evil subtype to Efreeti, if they were intended for it to matter for the purposes of summoning. Context it is put into matters and as you said, Evil, good, chaotic and lawful being listed alongside water, air, earth and fire hints heavily at subtypes mattering, not the given alignment of the subject.

But then again, I am asking because I am not sure if I am interpreting it correctly. Worse case the DM could shut me down anyway, at which point I guess I'd have to summon a djinni?

These cases are 100% DM's call. If I was your DM i'd shut you down, if Crake was your DM he'd enable your free wishes (though he'll probably completely screw you over with them as he should!). I personally think a lawful evil creature is a lawful evil creature so the spell would become lawful and evil but if the DM says that part of the spell text is exclusively about subtypes then who am I to argue? More power for me. But in my experience, it's always best to go with the worst possible interpretation to not let the DM feel iffy, or myself even. And if Crake was my DM I'd still play as if my ruling is correct because I don't want to feel "iffy"

I don't see anywhere that it says the creature is typical for it's kind in all way, the way other spells denote that. The creature you call could well be advanced (within the limits of the spell of course, lesser planar binding cannot call forth a 12HD succubus for example), have the elite array, have class levels and so on. The person doing the calling has no control over this though. They cannot say "I wish to summon a tiefling with 6 levels in sorcerer" they can only say "I wish to summon a tiefling" or "I wish to summon this specific tiefling who I can refer to by their proper name".

As both a DM and a player, I've both allowed and been allowed to even summon templated creatures, like a half celestial pegasus. After all, the spell says "The kind of creature to be bound must be known and stated." A half celestial pegasus is a kind of creature, it is known to exist, and is stated by the caster. No other criteria necessary.

I mean, sure, if your DM allows, and I think SOME templates are fair game, like a NORMAL template and not a 100 non-hd-increasing-template stacked creature, but I claim that a "12hd succubus" is not a kind of creature like "succubus." I mean sure you can argue that each hit die of succubus is its own "kind" despite all this using meta-terminology but all this is not specifically spelled out, or even mentioned, so I feel uncomfortable using it this way.

I will say there is significantly more than enough leeway for a DM to rule it your way or my way without either being called house rules.

[Mordaedil]

Cool! Thanks for the input guys, you are the best.

[Quertus]

So, you try to summon a "Human" via a "Summon Human" spell.

You don't get to specify whether this human has 20 levels in Programmer, or is a level 2 Expert. But, in summoning a Human, they might well have professional skills, because that's something humans can have.

I have the "Alternate Reproductive Summoner" prestige class, and cannot summon free births. Humans are free births by default. But Clone Troopers and other proper life forms exist which are still Human without being disgusting free births. So I can summon one of those. I cannot choose which I summon. And, technically, a normal, less picky Summoner could summon a proper clone "by accident", too.

At least, that's my take on how summoning works. No RAW was harmed or used in any way in the creation of this post.

[RoboEmperor]

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

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

Ok, I think this definitively proves planar ally and planar binding can call advanced creatures so I stand corrected.

Elementals are somewhat more attractive now.

[gogogome]

Ok, I think this definitively proves planar ally and planar binding can call advanced creatures so I stand corrected.

Elementals are somewhat more attractive now.

I think you need to include these quotes on the first page. They are very important.

[RoboEmperor]

I think you need to include these quotes on the first page. They are very important.

It is Done.

[Segev]

I think you need to include these quotes on the first page. They are very important.

It is Done.

Now, interesting question: IF gogogome would withhold his approval should RoboEmperor fail to follow this suggestion, and RoboEmperor valued that approval, did gogogome enslave RoboEmperor?

If not, at what point would gogogome's offer of payment and/or RoboEmperor's level of craving for the offered payment make it slavery?

The real difference between planar binding and planar ally in terms of slavery or not is that planar binding offers the option, while planar ally does not. It's generally assumed, given the option to enslave rather than achieve a willing cooperation, that casters will take the "enslave it to my will" option, but it's not required.

[Crake]

I mean, sure, if your DM allows, and I think SOME templates are fair game, like a NORMAL template and not a 100 non-hd-increasing-template stacked creature,

I mean, you could try, but just because a creature like that COULD exist, doesn't mean it DOES.

but I claim that a "12hd succubus" is not a kind of creature like "succubus."

I agree with you there. If you summoned a succubus with lesser planar binding, you would always get a 6HD succubus, if you summoned a succubus with regular, or greater planar binding, you might get an advanced succubus (it's not guaranteed), either advanced by class, or by HD. Hell, you may well even get a templated succubus, as a templated succubus is still a succubus.

I mean sure you can argue that each hit die of succubus is its own "kind" despite all this using meta-terminology but all this is not specifically spelled out, or even mentioned, so I feel uncomfortable using it this way.

If I gave the impression this was how I intended for it all to work, I'm sorry for the miscommunication, but that's not at all how I would run it. You can't say "I want a 12HD succubus", or "I want a 9HD succubus", you can simply say "I want a succubus", and depending on the power of the spell you're using, you'll get something that fits into the HD requirements of what you're summoning. Personally, as 99% of humans are level 1 commoners, 99% of succubi are unadvanced monsters, so the likelihood of actually getting an advanced succubus is exceedingly small with planar binding. With planar ally on the other hand, the deity picks the creature, it's not entirely random. If you're using regular planar ally, and the best minion for the job is a succubus, why NOT send an advanced succubus.

I will say there is significantly more than enough leeway for a DM to rule it your way or my way without either being called house rules.

As I said, I don't feel it works that way, though as you demonstrated later in the thread, there is definitely precedence for advanced creatures being summonable. I feel like, for the most part, calling advanced creatures is usually done by name, not by chance.

[Florian]

It is Done.

There must already be a name for that certain kind of fallacy around, right?

The name of the game is "Specific beats general", but only because the underlying framework of d20 tries to use and re-use a lot of "common rules", instead of "discreet rules". Ex: Handling a lot of things via shared rules, like conditions and such.

That said, when one discreet rules element comes included with a specific exception, that doesn't make that one exception into a genreal rule.

[Crake]

There must already be a name for that certain kind of fallacy around, right?

The name of the game is "Specific beats general", but only because the underlying framework of d20 tries to use and re-use a lot of "common rules", instead of "discreet rules". Ex: Handling a lot of things via shared rules, like conditions and such.

That said, when one discreet rules element comes included with a specific exception, that doesn't make that one exception into a genreal rule.

This isn't so much a rule though, as much as it is a precedent. The general rule is ambiguous regarding the topic of summoning advanced creatures with stronger spells, but this precedent gives reason to believe it is generally doable.

[magic9mushroom]

Since the thread's reasonably recent, I figured I might drop some thoughts on this.

1: By the rules in PHB, Planar Binding definitely allows you to coerce a creature into doing what you want via the Charisma check (barring "impossible demands or unreasonable commands"), or to simply outright murder it/mind-control it after calling it up. It doesn't provide rules for what happens if you threaten it with death unless it agrees to service. One valid ruling, IMO, would be that, since you didn't win the Charisma check, the creature is not actually compelled (i.e. this ensues).

2: The rules in Fiendish Codex II clearly state that the Charisma check for Planar Binding a devil automatically fails if the modifiers don't stack up right. While this isn't completely beyond belief (it could be a Hells-wide collective bargaining agreement, to discourage mortals from enslaving them), it is definitely a reverse-course from the PHB. To be perfectly honest, I don't like Fiendish Codex II very much, because it has a much larger reverse-course in it as well - rules that send a significant proportion of LG, LN, NE and CE souls to the Nine Hells, despite this absolutely crapping on all the established lore. As such, I'd personally be hesitant to apply some of its changes in a game I was DMing, including this one.

3: PHB: "The creature might later seek revenge." This is a very vague sentence allowing the DM to enforce storyline consequences for use - and, more particularly, abuse - of Planar Binding. The obvious solution to this is to simply murder the creature before it goes back, but there are a few caveats here:

a) if you're actually using the Charisma check to control the creature, it's freed and returned the instant it informs you of its success. You will either have to kill it before it completes its task, or use divination to figure out when it's succeeded and arrange some method of killing it before it can report back. Bit of a headache either way.

b) again if you're actually using the Charisma check, there is the issue that "serve me and then I'll murder you" is kind of the definition of an "unreasonable command" and as such you'll have to deceive the creature in some fashion. This would involve a Bluff vs. Sense Motive opposed check.

c) while calling and then killing an outsider doesn't leave someone pissed off at you, it does create a mysterious disappearance, and the D&D universe is one where divination magic exists (as does True Resurrection). Moreover, you are probably not the first person to try this kind of stunt. As such, I would imagine that the lawful planes would keep records of this sort of thing in their enormous bureaucracies, and any relatively-orderly plane would have a small section of their police force dedicated to investigating these kind of transplanar serial killers. I'm not saying it'd be worth their while to stop you after one or two incidents like this, but if you made a habit of it as a player I'd feel perfectly justified as DM in sending an Overwhelming-rated kill squad after you (the DMG does recommend 5% of encounters be beyond the PCs' capabilities). There are some planar denizens which are relatively unlikely to do this - Limbo's slaadi and the Abyss' demons being the type examples - but even then you'll get unlucky eventually. Or a kolyarut could come after you for breaking your bargains, because that's a thing in D&D (cf: Obligatum VII from Elder Evils, who was dispatched to free Pandorym after its summoners betrayed, mutilated and imprisoned it).

4: Something to remember from the horse's mouth.

DMG p.6: "Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so the players don't rebel."

This might just be me, but "I'm not really interested in running a whole subplot about you being punished for your hubris, but I don't want to hand you the carte blanche that Planar Binding is absent consequences" is a pretty logical justification for houseruling/banning PB from where I sit.

[zergling.exe]

Since the thread's reasonably recent, I figured I might drop some thoughts on this.

1: By the rules in PHB, Planar Binding definitely allows you to coerce a creature into doing what you want via the Charisma check (barring "impossible demands or unreasonable commands"), or to simply outright murder it/mind-control it after calling it up. It doesn't provide rules for what happens if you threaten it with death unless it agrees to service. One valid ruling, IMO, would be that, since you didn't win the Charisma check, the creature is not actually compelled (i.e. this ensues).

2: The rules in Fiendish Codex II clearly state that the Charisma check for Planar Binding a devil automatically fails if the modifiers don't stack up right. While this isn't completely beyond belief (it could be a Hells-wide collective bargaining agreement, to discourage mortals from enslaving them), it is definitely a reverse-course from the PHB. To be perfectly honest, I don't like Fiendish Codex II very much, because it has a much larger reverse-course in it as well - rules that send a significant proportion of LG, LN, NE and CE souls to the Nine Hells, despite this absolutely crapping on all the established lore. As such, I'd personally be hesitant to apply some of its changes in a game I was DMing, including this one.

3: PHB: "The creature might later seek revenge." This is a very vague sentence allowing the DM to enforce storyline consequences for use - and, more particularly, abuse - of Planar Binding. The obvious solution to this is to simply murder the creature before it goes back, but there are a few caveats here:

a) if you're actually using the Charisma check to control the creature, it's freed and returned the instant it informs you of its success. You will either have to kill it before it completes its task, or use divination to figure out when it's succeeded and arrange some method of killing it before it can report back. Bit of a headache either way.

b) again if you're actually using the Charisma check, there is the issue that "serve me and then I'll murder you" is kind of the definition of an "unreasonable command" and as such you'll have to deceive the creature in some fashion. This would involve a Bluff vs. Sense Motive opposed check.

c) while calling and then killing an outsider doesn't leave someone pissed off at you, it does create a mysterious disappearance, and the D&D universe is one where divination magic exists (as does True Resurrection). Moreover, you are probably not the first person to try this kind of stunt. As such, I would imagine that the lawful planes would keep records of this sort of thing in their enormous bureaucracies, and any relatively-orderly plane would have a small section of their police force dedicated to investigating these kind of transplanar serial killers. I'm not saying it'd be worth their while to stop you after one or two incidents like this, but if you made a habit of it as a player I'd feel perfectly justified as DM in sending an Overwhelming-rated kill squad after you (the DMG does recommend 5% of encounters be beyond the PCs' capabilities). There are some planar denizens which are relatively unlikely to do this - Limbo's slaadi and the Abyss' demons being the type examples - but even then you'll get unlucky eventually. Or a kolyarut could come after you for breaking your bargains, because that's a thing in D&D (cf: Obligatum VII from Elder Evils, who was dispatched to free Pandorym after its summoners betrayed, mutilated and imprisoned it).

4: Something to remember from the horse's mouth.

DMG p.6: "Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so the players don't rebel."

This might just be me, but "I'm not really interested in running a whole subplot about you being punished for your hubris, but I don't want to hand you the carte blanche that Planar Binding is absent consequences" is a pretty logical justification for houseruling/banning PB from where I sit.

The cut-off for thread necromany is 45 days, this thread is over 60 days old.

[Roland St. Jude]

The cut-off for thread necromany is 45 days, this thread is over 60 days old.

Sheriff: Indeed.