Let's not forget the breeding process for fishmen!

No, it makes them a superliminal. bluh.

This is always a good initial approach!

Seriously? A kid who grows up in a mercenary camp will acquire all sorts of non-combat skills. Sent out as a runner? Athletics. Kitchen duty? Craft. Wheedling for seconds? Performance, Presence. Cadging extra food more directly? Investigation, Larceny. Constant ribbing from the grunts? Integrity, Socialize. Sentry duty? Awareness, Stealth. Helping the medic, the quartermaster, the grooms? Medicine, Bureaucracy, Ride.

I assume you meant "pastry golems." A pasty golem would be something else entirely.

To clarify for other posters, the character in question is Bal Keraz, the Realm's Minister of the Treasury.

I don't think you have anything to worry about on that score.

It may explain even more to note that since the original author for the "helltech" (ugh) chapter dropped out halfway through the development cycle without turning in any material, I went from concept ("there's going to be an Infernals hardback?") to final draft in a month and a half. Good times.

Note that "not even binary inputs" is also a valid interpretation -- no gestures, no passwords, etc -- and is probably more fitting to the tight strictures of task binding.

No, you're right, the cup-filling gesture is probably kosher.

As noted earlier, this is all about the bright line between task binding and regular binding. None of the sorcerers in my games have ever tried to game the system with edge cases, so I cannot speak from experience as to what needs to fall on which side of the line. But that line is what you need to keep in mind when determining what tasks are valid and what aren't.

As per Savant and Sorcerer, no, that would just be a semantic reordering of the same pair of tasks. A delay would only be relevant if it's part and parcel of the core task (like "push forward the seconds hand of my demon-powered clock once per second").

Mind you, Savant and Sorcerer presents the issue in terms of demons being obsessed with their tasks and being unwilling to hang around waiting before fulfilling the task. But I think that parsing out the delay as a separate task is the only way for that ruling to make sense.

That's correct. You must rely on the demon's own judgment as to what actions it takes in support of the task.

#2 is unacceptable because it relies on outside input. Fill the cup every hour? Sure. Fill the cup when it thinks you might be thirsty? Sure. Fill the cup in response to your instructions? Nope.

Ultimately, this is to draw a bright line between task binding and regular binding, to avoid the inevitable task of "obey me as if you were bound in the normal way, but since it's a task you have to do it forever instead of for a year." It's kind of like how you can't wish for a genie to give you more wishes.

As per Savant and Sorcerer, no, that would just be a semantic reordering of the same pair of tasks. A delay would only be relevant if it's part and parcel of the core task (like "push forward the seconds hand of my demon-powered clock once per second").

Mind you, Savant and Sorcerer presents the issue in terms of demons being obsessed with their tasks and being unwilling to hang around waiting before fulfilling the task. But I think that parsing out the delay as a separate task is the only way for that ruling to make sense.

That's correct. You must rely on the demon's own judgment as to what actions it takes in support of the task.

#2 is unacceptable because it relies on outside input. Fill the cup every hour? Sure. Fill the cup when it thinks you might be thirsty? Sure. Fill the cup in response to your instructions? Nope.

#1 is actually unacceptable as well, for the same reason. Grant admission to a set of people listed during the binding? Sure. Grant admission to people wearing specific livery or who repeat a certain password? Sure. Grant admission in response to your instructions? Nope.

Ultimately, this is to draw a bright line between task binding and regular binding, to avoid the inevitable task of "obey me as if you were bound in the normal way, but since it's a task you have to do it forever instead of for a year." It's kind of like how you can't wish for a genie to give you more wishes.

As per Savant and Sorcerer -- which is the first source I know of to discuss task binding in detail -- there are no limits on the complexity of a task. There are other limits on task binding, however.

The most notable is that the terms of the task must be complete and self-contained; no task can demand further input after the binding is complete. Thus, you can call up a demon and instruct it on how to act in war, but the task cannot compel it to obey the instructions of a sergeant, captain or general, as the specifics of such instructions would not be part of the terms laid down during the binding. Similarly, you could task a demon to be your manservant, but you would not then be able to command the manservant to perform (or refrain from performing, or perform in a different way) any specific duties other than those laid down during the binding -- which makes for a poor manservant.

In addition, the task must be exactly that -- one task. It cannot be a laundry list of unrelated activities. In this light, "wait here X days and then go to war" is actually two tasks -- one to wait X days, the second to go to war.

(Note that all this refers to 1e/2e task binding. I do not know how bindings will work in 3e.)

EDIT: Deleted. Await proper example from devs.