Binding spirit

[Kosmit]

But if you take approach that you pay strain for powers and bind spirit to protect it from others, talk to it etc.

I know taking good care of slaves is still slavery, but I take rather "It is you home now and I will be your friend. I can set you free but if you help me I can help you".

[The Undying]

This is morbidly hilarious because you're actually starting to sound like a slave owner in modern history.

- "you pay Strain for power" = so? You are forcing the spirit to use its power! This isn't a "oh, hey buddy, you want that extra beer but you don't have the cash, don't worry, I got you" situation, it's a "I bought this beer now drink it, I don't care if you don't want it or you're drunk or your stomach is full" situation

- "protect it from others" = that spirit was doing JUST FINE for years, maybe decades or centuries, before you came along and jammed it in a box. For one, I'm guessing that it's a fairly strong spirit if you decided to bind it, that kinda makes "protection" a lacking justification. For two, that spirit doesn't live in a land of vicious predators and isn't dogged by enemies - it doesn't need a place to hide.

- "talk to it" = First, keep in mind that you're gonna be bleeding Strain while using Spirit Talk. Two, even if you're BFFs, pretty sure that spirit would be happier having more people to talk to, or AT LEAST BEING FREE to talk to others if it wanted to.

- "it's your home now and I will be your friend" = again, there's a mechanism for that already. It's called Familar. That is now its home, yes, BECAUSE IT CAN NEVER LEAVE. Friends don't put collars and chains on their friends.

- "I can set you free" = sorry, but I personally don't care what you rolled on your single Charisma test. The chance that any creature would willingly enslave themselves because "its cool, he'll set me free when I ask" is bordering on absurd, ESPECIALLY after a single interaction (but still even after years of interaction).

There are basically two types of slave owners: the unabashed ones and the guilty ones. You're the guilty one. You're trying to explain, to yourself or others, why either being a slave is better than not or why it really isn't slavery even though it is. You're a Nethermancer, be the unabashed one. Just don't split hairs - you're a slave owner now, even if your table thinks it's not that bad (which is how innumerable communities have always viewed their brand of slavery, be it people or animals [I'm talking circuses here]). More over, you're a SLAVER now since you actually did the enslaving (I'm sure most slave owners would say it's one thing to buy and use a tool *cough*slave*cough* but another thing to enslave someone - what a dreadful thing to do, perish the very thought!).

Just to be clear: I'm not saying anyone is wrong for binding spirits, and I'm not trying to say that player (i.e., not the character, the player) is a bad human being for doing it in their character. Spirit binding IS a thing in Earthdawn, and Earthdawn does delve it's toe into the dicey and sometimes murky water of slavery. I'm just trying to say that we should call a spade a spade: binding is enslaving. Now, spirits are completely alien creatures that Namegivers can never truly know, and since it isn't a Namegiver, lots of folks likely don't see it as bad as enslaving a fellow Namegiver, if they even really considered it slavery at all.

The best analogy we have in modern day is something like animals in circuses. Animals aren't people, so is it inherently WRONG to cage them and force them to do things against their will (i.e., slavery)? Even if you're kind to them, does that really change anything?

Regardless, you can BE SURE that people against the idea of preventing someone's freedom and forcing them to do something against their will are going to get pissed, and in Earthdawn, that's Lochost and his questors. There's no grey area here - they are against forced captivity and service, you have something trapped and are forcing its service (and, as I said before, if you didn't want to cage it and put a collar on it, you should've made it a Familiar). You can also BE SURE that members of that same "race" (spirits) are going to beat feet away from anyone they see holding a bound spirit, and if they can't beat feat (e.g., summoned), they are going to be pretty hostile. Other Namegivers may not view it as harshly as Namegiver enslavement but still find it distasteful and treat you accordingly (of course, they have to know about it first, whereas spirits can see that right away in the astral plane). Others may see it as no problem, while still being against Namegiver slavery, and see absolutely no conflict in those two ideas.

[True Neutral]

Does a binding have to be onerous? If you do convince a spirit to be bound for the greater good and communicate with it to confirm it's choice from time to time, is that bondage akin to slavery or is that just employment? What if you are performing actions the spirit wishes done, or rewarding the spirit afterward when it is released? The opposite is certainly true, a Nethermancer could force an unwilling spirit into service through force of will, keep it bound needlessly (thrown in an old chest or shelf and forgotten perhaps) and that seems more akin to slavery. But if, as noted earlier, spirits can't use Life magic, any abililties they have that require Strain are unusable except through binding, right? That seems to speak of at least the possibility of symbiotic relationships purposefully built into the universe.

But if you rule that the very action of being bound for any reason is itself slavery, does your Lochost also frown on blood rituals to bind individuals or groups?

[Tattered Rags]

I think the problem is that there is no out once the spirit is bound. Blood oaths have an out (with a consequence). Bound spirits get used, freed, die, or languish. They don't get to exit on their own.

[The Undying]

Rags has it for the blood oath stuff. Those aren't slavery, they're agreements, one you can walk away from anytime - with the associated penalty.

Yes, binding is always bad because good intentions change. What if the spirit says that he's done but your REALLY need him for "this one last adventure." Even if you do actually let him go after that, you have completely forced that service out of them. Also, again, using their abilities isn't a discussion, it's a force. Better to think about it like squeezing a ketchup bottle - that spirit is bound, it can NEVER use its abilities on its own, you actually kind of reach it and force energy through it 1 that can't feel good.

Lastly, a lot of people are making a big thing about my life Magic comment. Remember: a SPIRIT cannot use life magic, but a MANIFEST SPIRIT can. Once manifest, they have a form from which life force can be sacrificed. So, spirits have everything they need to be able to use all their abilities, no one is every doing them favors by binding them and forcing them to use abilities and paying the Strain. It's just that bound spirits cannot manifest because they can't leave their cage.

[Slimcreeper]

And what if you have a stroke while carrying the bound spirit across a rope bridge and drop it into a Bottomless Chasm? Sure, in game that might not happen, but in the world the Spirit would trusting you AND fate quite a bit to undergo that willingly.

[The Undying]

And what if you have a stroke while carrying the bound spirit across a rope bridge and drop it into a Bottomless Chasm? Sure, in game that might not happen, but in the world the Spirit would trusting you AND fate quite a bit to undergo that willingly.

Incredibly valid point, even if your example is far-fetched. Things get lost. Things get stolen. Namegivers died before their time.

[Tattered Rags]

Let's say a spirit let's itself get bound in order to slay a Horror, but the Adept dies fighting the Horror. Now the bound spirit is in this Horror's possession.

Hmmmmm....plot hook, anyone? Crazy spirit driven mad?

[Kosmit]

And what if you have a stroke while carrying the bound spirit across a rope bridge and drop it into a Bottomless Chasm? Sure, in game that might not happen, but in the world the Spirit would trusting you AND fate quite a bit to undergo that willingly.

Incredibly valid point, even if your example is far-fetched. Things get lost. Things get stolen. Namegivers died before their time.

OK, binding is bad as hell xD

[The Undying]

OK, binding is bad as hell xD

For what it's worth, please just keep in mind that I'm not trying to say binding doesn't have its place, that it doesn't grant some great powers, or that a character or player is "bad" for engaging in it. All I'm trying to say is that there's no sugar-coating it = binding is [tantamount to] slavery, no spirit would [realistically] accept it unless there's insane extenuating circumstances.

You'd mentioned before that binding could offer protection. I can TOTALLY see that as a thing - but it's going to be insanely niche and I'd say almost 99.99999% not going to happen as a result of a summoning. Now, if you like this idea, I'd say talk to your GM about it - maybe, while you're out hunting Horrors or something, you come across a spirit that truly IS in long-term existential danger. Then, they might actually be willing to submit to a binding because it would effectively mask their existence from their hunters WHILE STILL holding out hope that either you will release it one day (if you agree to after some period of service after which the hunt has likely expired - a la horror mark or something) or that you'll eventually lose the item and they can Content of Wills their way into freedom (a CHANCE at living may be a better option than a NEAR GUARANTEE of death if left in the wild). In these cases, I think you could bind pretty much guilty free. Again, though, this is very, very, very likely to be super niche, the chance that you happen to summon up a spirit in this situation should be next to 0.

Barring this situation? Yeah, you're a slaver for binding, but in the same arguable sense that animal trainers in a circus are slavers. But, you're a Nethermancer: no regrets, man, if this serves an important purpose.