Binding Spirits, I need some clairication Options

[JollySkull]

Okay so first off I am a first time poster but I have been reading this forum a decent amount of time. Now, I have been reading about how all magicians should bind spirits on here. But, her is the thing that bugs me about it. some traditions are supposedly suppose to regard spirits in such high regard that they would never bind a spirit as it is a form of slavery. Which to me the more important thing is to maintain the story of your players and allow them to explore the world.

So if someone could please help me understand this that would be great.

thanks

[Johnny Hammersti...]

This is a role playing thing. If your player, or character, believes spirits shouldn't be bound because of his tradition, all the more power to him. He'll still be a completely viable character.

From a crunch standpoint though, bound spirits are a powerful tool. a very powerful tool.

[Brazilian_Shinob...]

I don't meddle too much into magic, ut there is always summoning, which is some sort of bargain -> karma for service.

[tagz]

Several things.

First, not Binding spirits will not reduce the ability of your mage or mystic adept by enough to make it not viable. You'll likely still have more versitility then you specialized table-mates. Not Binding is not like a Street Sam not taking a form of Initiative Pass augmentation.

Second, your tradition may see it that way and that's fine. Great even. That doesn't mean you can't still Bind. The binding process need not be a "Master-Slave" relationship. You can role play this as a negotiation, conscripting a willing spirit to work for you in exchange for something in return. The mechanics would play out the same, possibly representing the process of negotiating. Now, if you played it that way and DIDN'T come through on your end of the bargain though... that would be an angry spirit next time.

[JollySkull]

Awesome thanks for all the input.

the reason I ask this is because a small reference in SR4a pg 188 roleplaying spirits. this brought cunfusion to me so hence the reason I asked.


Thanks

[Ol' Scratch]

Binding isn't always about dominating a spirit. Simply making bargains, promises, or just befriending one can all account for the binding rules. I have a character with a fey tradition who partakes in binding through drunken revelry. He calls one of the fey folk out from hiding and invites them over for some drinks (the binding materials). The drain is covered by the resulting drunkeness and hangover, and the actual binding itself is described as the spirit taking a shining to the magician and offering to help him out whenever he needs him.

You can do similar things with other traditions. No reason to have such a narrow definition of such a broad and abstract concept.

[Witch]

I'm not convinced that Binding is anything but dominating a spirit. The Core Rulebook (20th Ann. Edition) says that "Binding is used to compel long-term service from a spirit the magician has already summoned." (p. 188) In the sidebar 'Uncontrolled Spirits' (p. 189) , it says that "[m]ost spirits resent attempts to bind them, as it turns the relationship between magician and spirit from a short-term contract between equals (or near equals) to a forced servitude for an extended periode of time." It even goes as far to say that "[m]ost uncontrolled spirits will attack the magician who attempts to bind them." This doesn't sound like 'making bargains' or 'befriending'.

[The_Vanguard]

I'm not convinced that Binding is anything but dominating a spirit. The Core Rulebook (20th Ann. Edition) says that "Binding is used to compel long-term service from a spirit the magician has already summoned." (p. 188) In the sidebar 'Uncontrolled Spirits' (p. 189) , it says that "[m]ost spirits resent attempts to bind them, as it turns the relationship between magician and spirit from a short-term contract between equals (or near equals) to a forced servitude for an extended periode of time." It even goes as far to say that "[m]ost uncontrolled spirits will attack the magician who attempts to bind them." This doesn't sound like 'making bargains' or 'befriending'.

Yes, that's what the rules say, but I'd still like to call this reasoning into question. First, I fail to see why Binding would change the nature of the relationship at all. Why can't a "contract between equals" simply be extended when the teamwork is good? Second, this totally fails to address the many different ideas of spirits that the countless magical traditions have. I see this more as a poor explanation that was just needed to justify the rules. In-universe, I'd suspect the author to be a hermetic with a lot of bias for his own tradition.

Still, no matter how small the chance, you can always argue that your character in particular is one of these exceptions. Player characters are all about breaking the norm, after all. Coupled with the fact that the GM has almost no guidelines on roleplaying spirits, I'd say this is something that should be decided individually for every character. If you don't, you risk missing out on extremely cool background flavor like Ol'Scratch's story. And that would really be a shame, wouldn't it?

Long story short: Don't let the rules get in the way of good roleplaying.

[Ol' Scratch]

Note also that "sway" is a defining synonym for "compel." You're simply convincing the spirit to assist you one way or another. It doesn't have to be aggressive or disagreeable.

But, somehow, I don't think that's going to "compel" anyone to change their minds on the subject. The people who write the rules have this painfully nasty habit of forcing one particular mindset into the description of the rules no matter how abstract and broad the actual concept is. As pointed out earlier, there's more than one way to handle binding and in no way is it a hostile act in and of itself. Well, not anymore than 'binding' the service of a friend to come over and help you move for the cost of a pizza and some beer is. Sure, you could put a gun to their head instead, or threaten to kill their family if they don't comply, but that makes you a dick, not the actual act of getting a friend to come over and help.

[JollySkull]

Yes, this could be it after all I am playing an abo tradition. So this could help as they commune with spirits and want them to aid them of their own free will.
That aways confused me with the binding thing.

[Witch]

The thing is: if Binding is merely convincing a spirit, rather than magically 'binding' it, having it require another skill doesn't make sense. You would just be able to use Negotiation.

[Wasabi]

Even if you it is compelling a spirit you could still treat them very nicely, talk to them, ask them if they'd mind doing something without commanding them like some selfish sales manager to perform or else! The RP of it could be to compel them to speak and if they say they dont want to do it rather than force them to do it as is your ability to choose not to have them do what is against their will.

Spirit Affinity and specializing in one type of spirit could add to RP for that sort of char.

[MortVent]

The thing is: if Binding is merely convincing a spirit, rather than magically 'binding' it, having it require another skill doesn't make sense. You would just be able to use Negotiation.

One way of thinking on binding as a skill is: it's a specialized skill in negotiating with spirits, knowing what to say and how to act to convince them to work for you (aka a combination of every single influence skill... but only for spirits and with one aim)

[Ol' Scratch]

...and you may as well say the same thing about the 'default' assumption about Binding and the Intimidation skill.

[Witch]

One way of thinking on binding as a skill is: it's a specialized skill in negotiating with spirits, knowing what to say and how to act to convince them to work for you (aka a combination of every single influence skill... but only for spirits and with one aim)

If it's a specialized skill, it should be a negotiation specialty.

...and you may as well say the same thing about the 'default' assumption about Binding and the Intimidation skill.

Drawing magical circles and using arcane formulae to bind spirits isn't intimidating them - it's binding them. Magically.


I can see the problem in the rules, but I don't think that merely expanding on the skill makes sense: once you try to make it into a social interaction rather than a magical enslaving, the question rises why it's its own skill at all.

[Ol' Scratch]

Drawing magical circles and using arcane formulae to bind spirits isn't intimidating them - it's binding them. Magically.

And yet another assumption on your part.

Where, exactly, is it stated that this is the only use of Binding? Quit making the same mistakes the twits who wrote those rules made. Binding is a general concept flavored by one's tradition and one's own beliefs. Rituals are still required no matter how you slice it, but they do not have to be hostile or demanding. Calling them to you so that you can open a dialogue with them fits just fine and dandy. Whether it be through a magic circle you carefully lay out, or laying out incense and candles to aid you in praying to your god or gods for help, or just setting up a bar loaded with all kinds of charms to lure out the fey folk... it's all the same.

It's no different than Summoning is. It can be aggressive and hostile, or it can be friendly and persuasive. It's up to the individual to decide, not something dictated by the skill itself.

[Witch]

I'm not making mistakes - 'binding' is a concept that's very specific. It's a concept that implies restraining a creature, and as it is a Magic skill, it's supposed to be restraining a creature magically. If it were just about convincing the target, there's no reason for Magic or magical skills to intrude.

[MortVent]

I'm not making mistakes - 'binding' is a concept that's very specific. It's a concept that implies restraining a creature, and as it is a Magic skill, it's supposed to be restraining a creature magically. If it were just about convincing the target, there's no reason for Magic or magical skills to intrude.

you are bound to think that way using your logic. So logic is binding you into behaving a certain way.

It's not such a cut and dried specific, binding is just the easiest way to word it.

As a skill it's a focused ability to learn how to work magic and negotations with a summoned spirit... it requires a seperate skill due to the fact you have to channel magic during it in a specific way. Regardless of forcing your will, tricking the spirit into serving, or asking it properly.

In the end it is bound by force, logic, or oath. But the magical effects needed are why it is a seperate skill, and not a specialization... because the mystical knowledge of channeling/focusing mana and proper ways of dealing with the spirits is a far cry from normal influence skill use.

It's like saying cooking a cake is the same as making a chemical monstronsity like plastic explosives since both involve mixing chemicals and cooking ingredients

[Ol' Scratch]

<shrugs> Whatever. If you wanna stick to such a narrow-minded, painfully boring, and terribly one-dimensional view of it, knock yourself out.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I'm not making mistakes - 'binding' is a concept that's very specific. It's a concept that implies restraining a creature, and as it is a Magic skill, it's supposed to be restraining a creature magically. If it were just about convincing the target, there's no reason for Magic or magical skills to intrude.

And at that point, you could use the Calling rules in Running Wild and it should work for all Spirit Types, instead of the limited application in the Book. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Keep the Faith

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

<shrugs> Whatever. If you wanna stick to such a narrow-minded, painfully boring, and terribly one-dimensional view of it, knock yourself out.

No need for the implications of your post there Doc... Witch has a different opinion, not a narrow minded, painfully boring, one-dimensional view of things. Why do you always take the most offensive route to something? It is not really necessary, nor is it conducive to rational discourse... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Keep the Faith

[LurkerOutThere]

<shrugs> Whatever. If you wanna stick to such a narrow-minded, painfully boring, and terribly one-dimensional view of it, knock yourself out.

I've been following this thread for a bit now and frankly Scratch your tone is completely uncalled for.

One way or another no matter how you go about "binding" whether carrot or stick, negotiation or coercion, is bound to your will and cannot go against it for extended periods of time. That is not a contract between equal partners, it is long term servitude where you can force cetain actions on one party. Even if you call a chrebum of Uriel (an earth spirit) in a prayerful and pious manner once you tell him to loose his Quake power on downtown Omaha killing hundreds of thousands of people by the rules. HE HAS TO DO IT. You might almost say he is bound to do so.

The system you are discussing potentially falls into a couple of areas, situational bonuses applied by a GM to a binding/summoining roll, or something entirely different like calling.

[Witch]

And at that point, you could use the Calling rules in Running Wild and it should work for all Spirit Types, instead of the limited application in the Book. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Keep the Faith

I've looked up those rules, and they sound like a great alternative to the Binding rules. I'll probably adapt those rules somewhat for mages of traditions that don't approve of binding spirits. Thanks for the tip!

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I've looked up those rules, and they sound like a great alternative to the Binding rules. I'll probably adapt those rules somewhat for mages of traditions that don't approve of binding spirits. Thanks for the tip!

Yeah, I want to look at them more in depth, they sound good, but I have yet to actually try them out in detail. Let me know how it works out for you... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

Keep the Faith

[D2F]

Why do you always take the most offensive route to something?

It's in his nature. I am not sure he knows how to deal with different opinions any other way.