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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

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



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.

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.

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

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

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.

Keep the Faith

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...

Keep the Faith

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.

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...

Keep the Faith

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

The problem is that the implication is that no matter how it's approached, no matter how the spirits view the deal, no matter how the magician goes about doing it, according to the mindset of people like Witch (both in this thread and others), it's always a hostile act, which implies that it is always something negative and which will mark you as treating spirits cruelly and unfairly.

If you willingly sign a contract with someone, which both you and they wrote together, is it some horrendously evil thing when, by the virtues of that contract, the other party asks you to do something? Just because you're bound (be it legally or magically) to do something, that doesn't make it evil, hostile, or wicked.

The Binding rules don't require you to specify the nature of the contract. Even if you introduce negotiation, this only leads to unspecified 'services', which the spirit is then magically compelled to do. The calling rules don't have this problem, and so I'll take those above the Binding rules for mages who want to negotiate with spirits instead of compel them.

While your argument isn't entirely without merit how often do you let someone talk you into a contract with an indeterminate length for an indeterminate type of future determined tasks? Some of those tasks can cause you pain and possibly even "death". That is part of why you'd almost need a completely different system to describe bargaining with spirits, because I can't think of anyone in their right mind who would agree to any contract in the way spirits are bound.

I'm not saying it's an exact comparison. I'm just pointing out that it doesn't have to be hostile or even unkind. Spirits aren't metahumans. Several traditions don't even consider them sentient so much as constructs of the magician's own mind or leftover remnants of emotional resonance, or simply manifestations of raw mana that are no more real than a spell is. There is no right or wrong answer about what they are, including the default assumption that they're real beings that live in another dimension. The same goes for skills and abilities used to deal with them. Even the Calling rules can be used in a hostile manner. It depends on the person using those skills 100%. If the person is a dick, they deserve to be treated like dicks. If they're kind and benevolent, they deserve to be treated in the same fashion.

I certainly want the hippy version of binding, it would be awesome if when you fail instead of killing you your spirit kisses your boo-boos because you are such great friends. So exactly what is the balancing cost for getting the better spirits just because you picked the we play nice with our slaves tradition?

Maybe binding being a hostile act was more narrowly defined for balancing the game.

Yes a wider range of traditions and views on spirits can be an interesting add to the game, but it does change the balance of binding at no cost. They aren't worse at spell slinging, they don't summon weaker spirits heck since they are friendly they probably summon more powerful spirits, they just get a better deal for no cost. Mages are overpowered enough without softening the penalties because you picked the right tradition.

This is what the BBB (SR4A, p. 189) has to say about the concept of "binding spirits":



So, binding changes the relationship from near-equals to forced servitude. It does not seem like the BBB considers "binding" to be amiable in nature.

In my opinion: you want amiable, you use the "calling" rules.

Yes, because that's exactly what it means and that's exactly what happens when you fail the attempt. Rules just spontaneously get ignored so your hyperbole can come about. In no way does failure mean, you know, failure regardless of how you approach the test. Perhaps that symbol you drew, meaning it to be a sign of respect, is instead taken as a grave insult to the spirit. Oh wait, no, that's not a possibility.


Or maybe some people don't need to have their hands held to interpret actions and dice rolls as appropriate to the situation.


No idea where you're coming up with this "no cost" dren from. But whatever.

Quite honestly, I'd say that a negotiating RP of binding can be far more costly then regular.

You make a promise to a spirit and bind it. Now after that if you don't hold up your end of the bargain, or are abusive in other ways then you'd have to deal with the consequences. The only difference here is that with this method the consequences are not a given, letting the player character take more control of the situation.

Ally spirits seem like a good way to do the "hippy binding tradition." They require metamagic and then karma investment, but they seem to be pretty good (although for the 50 or so karma, they'd better be).

Does anything really break if you have it so that RP-wise, spirits aren't angry about being bound per-se? Maybe you respect the spirits and binding is you exchanging, say, some of your life-force in return for a unbreakable oath to assist you. You take the drain from giving the spirit the life-force, if you fail to get services you lost the life force but didn't properly transfer it so you failed to hold up your end of the bargain. Now, as pointed out, after the oath is made you can tell the spirit to do something it is morally opposed to doing - but if you do that, spirits will be very hesitant to work with you in the future and will drive much harder bargains, by which I mean spend edge. I don't think a tradition in which binding works like this would be unbalancing, so long as the GM enforces that the spirits get angry really fast if the mage either doesn't respect them, or commands spirits to perform actions they're opposed to.

It is very nice of you, Doc Funk, to quote me. Unfortunately, you quoted the only part out of my entire post that on itself is without ANY meaning.

The rules section I quoted deals with how binding is perceived and what it does on an ethical level. It does change the relationship from near-equals to forced servitude. Whether some spirits are BDSM freaks and love to be in forced servitude is irrelevant to the nature of binding. What binding does it to "compel" a spirit into forced servitude, essentially turning it into a slave for the time being. It is a VERY one-dimensional relationship.

Keep in mind, that the part you quoted merely states that some spirits don't mind that, while most do. It didn't say the nature of the relationship would be different for them.

Because it rightfully dismissed anything you had to say afterwards. Most. If even one exception exists, your point is moot. Most is not all.


Not according to the logic herein. Hell, an ally spirit should absolutely loathe their creator right down to their core. No exceptions possible. You created life (or ripped it from the heart of the metaplanes and contorted it into a whorish mockery of something it was, if you go by a literal interpretation of the rules) and have eternally bound it to your will. Oh heavens no. How can you be so cruel?

I'm not even sure how these people can use Summoning without exacting their revenge. The services gained from that skill must be obeyed, too. Oh my, oh my.

Incorrect. The "most" merely refers to their attitude towards it, not the proceedings. To make it more obvious for you:

A summoning is, in essence, a kidapping of a formerly free spirit from his home to your plane in order to do your bidding.

How would you feel if someone ripped you from your chair, threw you through time and space to a circle you couldn't (or could) escape from, and told you that you had to perform X number of tasks before you could go home?

I'd be pretty pissed.

But what if your are a spirit thrill seeker? You could find this awesome

Lets not forget not all spirits are friendly

Say someone wants to bargain with a fire elemental for services, they create ward (binding) as much for their protection as anything..

They do the circle, then send a call out to the metaplanes for a spirit of the right type to come. Now the spirit that comes knows it's to a circle... if it's curious it might not be so bad not to have the circle, but if it's seeking a way to wreak havoc on metahumanity... it might be a really bad idea not to have the circle

It's a lot more complicated than a standard this is bad m'kay logic can handle...