[D&D] Imprisoning an epic level wizard.

[Mr Bean]

I might go out on a limb here Napoleon but that might not be the best way to keep him corporative.
More to the point if you put enough Anti-magic fields around him nothing short of another HL wizard can free him(Disjunct). Which is why you have multiple AMF's. Plus it presents a much more presentable image to most players.

As Crom mentioned my own little mental image built of visions of Stark's little helper(Whatever his name was) in Iron Man or Magneto's confinement in X-men 2. The Wizard is locked up, confined, powerless and then brought to heel and made to serve the enemy. Why the stick when you can show the carrot?

Also useful in making him more helpful hostages. If you want to be really mental with your players do everything in your power to convince them that he was right to rebel and paint him as sympathetically as possible.

[Oskuro]

If you want to be really mental with your players do everything in your power to convince them that he was right to rebel and paint him as sympathetically as possible.

Or make the character's portrait out of a 'shopped pic of Ian McKellen or The Sean.

As for the "kill him and rez him whenever you need him", you cannot ressurect an unwilling soul, and I doubt the mage would be cooperative given the circumstances.

By the way, a friend of mine did that in Ultima VII, he slaughtered every single civilian wherever he went, and rezzed them if they were needed for a quest.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I might go out on a limb here Napoleon but that might not be the best way to keep him corporative.
More to the point if you put enough Anti-magic fields around him nothing short of another HL wizard can free him(Disjunct). Which is why you have multiple AMF's. Plus it presents a much more presentable image to most players.

Personally, I'd be inclined to tell someone to fuck off if they locked me up in a dungeon for years and then asked for help. If the person is being kept around so they can be of service later, then it'd be a lot easier to just buy them off with something they can't provide themselves. And I don't know of anything that an epic level Wizard can't get for himself off hand. People hate to be locked up in a box and have all their power taken away. Especially when they don't agree with your reasons for taking such actions. The second he was let out, the Wizard in question would probably do everything in his rather impressive power to exact revenge on his captors. At least with a lobotomy you can bullshit your way into convincing him that the enemy did it to him and that you were, in fact, his savior. Wizards aren't known for having stellar Sense Motive checks, either, so send in someone like a Rogue or Sorcerer. A Rogue, especially an Epic Rogue, could sneak attack someone and then convince them that they didn't just ram a short sword into their spleen, that it was a dimension hopping attacker, nevermind that said Rogue was holding said short sword and shouted "SNEAK ATTACK!" as they thrust.

I guess that one could always go with the stacked AMFs, guards, etc. as described in an earlier post. Stockhoklm syndrome the guy with some massively charismatic guards and you can bend him to your will. A bit harder, takes longer, but it wouldn't be quite as twisted a thing to do as to chop up the Wizard's brain and then convince him you saved him at a later date.

If a high level Wizard wants a carrot, he'll make a carrot, either out of thin air or out of a nearby rock. If he wants crack, he'll make crack. What can you offer a Wizard that he won't be able to easily acquire himself?


I will admit that "And they perform a frontal lobotomy on you..." isn't exactly easy to stomach for most players. Ground into paste? Okay, fine. Crude brain surgery that leaves your character a vegetable? Not so fine. Then again, there was no request for it to be something that the players would like.


Though I wonder just how many AMFs it'd take to guarantee that the Wizard is locked up until you say otherwise. As far as simplicity goes, just going with "Lobotomize and then call upon a high level Cleric when you need the Wizard" is a good option, provided it isn't too gruesome for your players.

[Solauren]

I'm assuming you have a way to restrain or incapacitate the wizard in question?

My, nicest, recommendation would be
Amber Sarcophagus, from the Book of Exalted Deeds, combined with Permanency or someone recasting it every 2 weeks.

A downright, morally questionable, suggestion would be to research a Celestial variant of
Searing Seed from Dragon Magazine 300. This would cause the wizard in question to birth a Half-Celestial (and therefore good) version of itself, and leave the offending wizard rather vulnerable. Then imprison the original, and the good version could keep the evil one locked up.

If you want to be downright evil about it, use the Addiction spell from the Book of Vile Darkness, and addict him to several drugs that cause Intelligence and Wisdom damage. Problem is, this makes accessing his knowledge difficult.

Other suggestions
Baleful Polymorph (Player's Handbook), turn him into a Darkenbeast (Create Darkenbeast; Monsters of Faerun), then lock him in a box so sunlight can't get him. When you go to unseal him, make sure it's in an Dead Magic zone.

Curse of the Brute from Defenders of the Faith (followed by Permanency) could be used to turn him into a muscle bound idiot, you could then easily trap or keep contained. Put two rings of sustanance (DMG) on him, and toss him into an Otiluke's Resilant Sphere (Player's Handbook) that's permanent. He's contained.
Holding a 21st+ level wizard with an intelligence of 8 and a strength of 20 isn't that hard. Forcecage would do it until you can toss him into the Sphere.

Classic: Trap the Soul or Magic Jar

[Darth Smiley]

How you 'imprison' a wizard depends on what you want to do with him. In most cases, the way to make absolutely sure a wizard can't harm anyone is to kill him. So, what might make the powers that be want him alive?

The first, most obvious answer is that there is some horrible consequence if he dies. This is a wizard we are talking about; his death could very well cause an army of cthulhuesque creatures to decend upon the world. Or maybe he might have a phylactery somewhere, so that killing him results in an even worse, and probably unstoppable being. Maybe killing him will just cause him to reincarnate into someone else, and only postpone the problem. The weakness here is that it gives no reason to actually be able to talk to the guy; as long as he is technically 'alive' that's good enough, so a variety of trance/sleep inducings, beatings, poisonings, mutilations, etc, will work.

Alternatively, the prisoner may be the prison for another entity; a demon or otherworldly thing that has been sealed inside the prisoner. We don't want to kill the prisoner, because he technically hasn't done anything wrong (and has probably in fact done something heroic), and because killing him might let the demon out. The prison is there to make certain that even if the demon does gain control, even temporarily, he can't break loose.

A better reason would be moral reasons. If this character is a hero, then the leaders might simply be unwilling to kill him outright, especially if he was a friend in the past. He saved the world, he probably shouldn't get executed. At the same time, he might have dangerous, subversive ideas; like teaching everyone magic, that lords should be held accountable to the people, things like that. So they can't let him out. This actually has a great advantage in why this person is a quest giver; they defeated some world shattering force once, and now that evil is back...but they can't let him out or, after he's defeated the evil, he'll go right back to what he was doing before. So he'll be willing to give advice and consul (he doesn't want the world destroyed), even to the very people who imprisoned him.

[Hotfoot]

Not to be a complete dick, but why not just kill him? It's less of a hassle than going through all of this to restrain him, and let's face it, when you're dealing with super-powerful wizards, there is a good chance whatever they did to justify this level of imprisonment means that anyone else would be locked away for life or just flat out killed. Soul-stealing items exist in D&D with some regularity, so it wouldn't be hard to kill him and prevent him from easily resurrecting. After all, no soul, no rez. Boom done end.

And if this is a PC that's out of control, stop pulling punches and just kill him already. It's super-easy to do and if you do something like steal his soul, you allow for the eventual possibility that he could come back, maybe one day, but not right now.

[Mr Bean]

Not to be a complete dick, but why not just kill him? It's less of a hassle than going through all of this to restrain him, and let's face it, when you're dealing with super-powerful wizards, there is a good chance whatever they did to justify this level of imprisonment means that anyone else would be locked away for life or just flat out killed. Soul-stealing items exist in D&D with some regularity, so it wouldn't be hard to kill him and prevent him from easily resurrecting. After all, no soul, no rez. Boom done end.

And if this is a PC that's out of control, stop pulling punches and just kill him already. It's super-easy to do and if you do something like steal his soul, you allow for the eventual possibility that he could come back, maybe one day, but not right now.

It's not an PC Hootfoot , it's his NPC quest giver(And I'm guessing possible second Big bad). The OP asks how to restrain him, not how to kill him.

[Hotfoot]

Not to be a complete dick, but why not just kill him? It's less of a hassle than going through all of this to restrain him, and let's face it, when you're dealing with super-powerful wizards, there is a good chance whatever they did to justify this level of imprisonment means that anyone else would be locked away for life or just flat out killed. Soul-stealing items exist in D&D with some regularity, so it wouldn't be hard to kill him and prevent him from easily resurrecting. After all, no soul, no rez. Boom done end.

And if this is a PC that's out of control, stop pulling punches and just kill him already. It's super-easy to do and if you do something like steal his soul, you allow for the eventual possibility that he could come back, maybe one day, but not right now.

It's not an PC Hootfoot , it's his NPC quest giver(And I'm guessing possible second Big bad). The OP asks how to restrain him, not how to kill him.

Fair enough, but even so, the idea that someone would hide a time bomb like an insane mage just strikes me as incredibly short-sighted and just begging for eventual retribution. There are cleaner ways to have a Loki scenario.

[Mr Bean]

Fair enough, but even so, the idea that someone would hide a time bomb like an insane mage just strikes me as incredibly short-sighted and just begging for eventual retribution. There are cleaner ways to have a Loki scenario.

Could be an insane mage. Could be a tragic villain. Look at it from the powers that be. This guy(Per later OP posts) used to be a Hero, rebelled and nearly won the whole thing. Instead they captured him somehow and he has all sorts of useful knowledge locked in his head. In Crom's words he's a brain trust. For whatever reason he's will to help the powers that be (Someone else suggested having hostages of some sort against him to force him to be helpful.

Who knows, the point is how do you trap an Epic Level Wizard without Epic level magic and still keep alive enough to talk to him. So far Anti-magic fields backed up by physical guards seems to be the only reasonable way to do it and be nice to the guy. Trapping his soul in some magic vessel is another. Also high level Cleric magic is an option.

[Crom]

My original idea was to use the prison's elaborate measures to impress upon the party the threat that the imprisoned wizard represents. Some of the ideas in this thread have been pretty great, I'm now thinking that a new threat has emerged that forces the wizard to ally with his captors to prevent his own destruction. At the same time, while directing the party, he'll be making running his own schemes to secure his freedom, seeing how he's super-intelligent.

And, I was thinking that he would be a sympathetic villain, given that the guild he ended up warring with is not necessarily a good group of guys either.

The issue is, it is strange that they haven't killed him. The excuse of using him for his knowledge seemed to be the most plausible reason to keep him contained, perhaps rationalizing that they could always kill him at a later date.

[Hotfoot]

My original idea was to use the prison's elaborate measures to impress upon the party the threat that the imprisoned wizard represents. Some of the ideas in this thread have been pretty great, I'm now thinking that a new threat has emerged that forces the wizard to ally with his captors to prevent his own destruction. At the same time, while directing the party, he'll be making running his own schemes to secure his freedom, seeing how he's super-intelligent.

And, I was thinking that he would be a sympathetic villain, given that the guild he ended up warring with is not necessarily a good group of guys either.

The issue is, it is strange that they haven't killed him. The excuse of using him for his knowledge seemed to be the most plausible reason to keep him contained, perhaps rationalizing that they could always kill him at a later date.

There's got to be another reason. With all the ways to pry information from people's heads in D&D, or to just scry for it, knowledge seems pretty weak, and I know that if I were in a prison like that, I'd be less inclined to help out, even if it was some sort of world-ending event. I mean, as a mage of that power, I could practically make worlds, or at least go to another one.

You want a man who is unhinged? Who is three seconds from unleashing his power on any and all that get in his way? Make him a former villain who was out to conquer the world but fell in love with a hero/heroine. Give him a family. Impress on the players that they had an overly elaborate plan to strip him of his powers once, but decided against it.

And then you have a restraint that is RP based. He loses his family, he will continue where he left off however many years ago, but now with the added benefit of grief from loss of happiness.

[Imperial Overlord]

My original idea was to use the prison's elaborate measures to impress upon the party the threat that the imprisoned wizard represents. Some of the ideas in this thread have been pretty great, I'm now thinking that a new threat has emerged that forces the wizard to ally with his captors to prevent his own destruction. At the same time, while directing the party, he'll be making running his own schemes to secure his freedom, seeing how he's super-intelligent.

And, I was thinking that he would be a sympathetic villain, given that the guild he ended up warring with is not necessarily a good group of guys either.

The issue is, it is strange that they haven't killed him. The excuse of using him for his knowledge seemed to be the most plausible reason to keep him contained, perhaps rationalizing that they could always kill him at a later date.

This is a bad, bad idea. That's like keeping around a guy who can end the world because he can help you with your taxes. The knowledge in his brain isn't a reason to keep some that dangerous alive, because extracting it with a mind probe once would be far easier than keeping him alive indefinitely. As Hotfoot said, there's much better RP based reasons to have a powerful NPC quest giver turn into a major villain.

Imprisonment scenarios involving powerful dudes are tricky. Since killing them is usually easier you need a compelling reason why you need to keep hold of a guy who does not love you and can lay waste to a kingdom instead of just ending him.

Here's a few plausible answers.

1) He's practically unkillible and even if you do kill him he may still wreck havoc. Prison is actually the easier option (Imprisonment of The Dominator, The Lady, and The Ten Who Were Taken in the Black Company series).

2) Something bad will happen if he dies (Longshadow, Black Company) so taking him prisoner and making use of him is the best option until you can solve the problem. Note that doesn't mean he's comfortable or cooperative.

3) Atlas problem, related to number 2). He's doing something disaster preventing while confined, such as holding shut the gates to the Abyss. Everyone's boned if someone doesn't do it.

4) You're only keeping him prisoner temporarily so you can suck out his knowledge, sacrifice him at the right time, or savor his sweet, sweet soul.

[Hotfoot]

Option 3 actually has the potential for being a hero who has fallen into a battle with the darkness and is slowly being corrupted. The danger being that he is helpful, but cannot leave, and even if he could, he might have to be put down to save more people. After a sufficiently long time holding back the gates to hell, corruption, even very slight, is a very real concern.

[Imperial Overlord]

Option 3 actually has the potential for being a hero who has fallen into a battle with the darkness and is slowly being corrupted. The danger being that he is helpful, but cannot leave, and even if he could, he might have to be put down to save more people. After a sufficiently long time holding back the gates to hell, corruption, even very slight, is a very real concern.

Yep. Imagine the noble hero, sacrificing himself so everyone else can live free. Now imagine him after decades of suffering with no relief and little in the way of thanks. Imagine him seeing the dread and pity in the eyes of everyone who comes to see him, but still no relief. Imagine him remembering all the pleasures of life denied to him. Think of how that might eat at him, at what voices may whisper to him from the darkness year after year.

Or listen to the song "Iron Man."

[Khaat]

i'm a bit out of my rules-lawyering depth here (2nd edition unto death!), so i'll stick with "DM caveat" - the True King (or whomever) extracted a binding oath from the mage, and it cannot be broken. the specifics of the oath limit the mage to imparting wisdom and information, perhaps answering any question truthfully and fully, rather than pursuing his own agenda directly. that his machinations are often synchronous with that of his liege is happenstance. "protective custody".

hells, maybe the king wants to be rid of the guild, too. puts the king in his role as benevolent peace-maker, even over mages despite the game-rules absence of support.

now there's a thought: all mages are bound to the King's Oath during apprenticeship, and the king can strip them of magic with a word. suddenly having the king's ear means something again. (the royal bloodline would also be immune to arcane magics.)

overall, this imparts heavy Arthurian "king is the land" mojo, but depends entirely on whether it fits your game's style.

alternate (in oh, so many ways): turn him into an intelligent weapon.

[Imperial Overlord]

i'm a bit out of my rules-lawyering depth here (2nd edition unto death!), so i'll stick with "DM caveat" - the True King (or whomever) extracted a binding oath from the mage, and it cannot be broken. the specifics of the oath limit the mage to imparting wisdom and information, perhaps answering any question truthfully and fully, rather than pursuing his own agenda directly. that his machinations are often synchronous with that of his liege is happenstance. "protective custody".

hells, maybe the king wants to be rid of the guild, too. puts the king in his role as benevolent peace-maker, even over mages despite the game-rules absence of support.

now there's a thought: all mages are bound to the King's Oath during apprenticeship, and the king can strip them of magic with a word. suddenly having the king's ear means something again. (the royal bloodline would also be immune to arcane magics.)

overall, this imparts heavy Arthurian "king is the land" mojo, but depends entirely on whether it fits your game's style.

alternate (in oh, so many ways): turn him into an intelligent weapon.

This is the king of bad ideas. "Be Careful What You Wish For" will go into great detail why this idea sucks. But enslaving a megapowerful dude and hoping his hyperintelligent ass can't find a loophole in his bindings is pretty much the definition of wild eyed optimism.

[Crom]

Maybe I should go with the Dominator style situation, where they did kill him and all the Anti-magic fields, automatons and guards are for his remains.

[White Haven]

With the Dominator, it's more a case of knowing that he's transcended the conventional idea of 'Death' and so killing him just isn't relevant.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Well, I have found that the best way to drain a wizard of all his spells is a bit old-school, but you can't really go wrong with a Spelljamming Helm. A wizard sits in a chair, and he loses all spells he has memorized. They might have tricked him into sitting down in such a chair when they initially caught him, and it could be a part of the cell described on the previous page, where the helm is the only chair in the room, and so he sits in it every day, just to make SURE he isn't memorizing any spells.

Ah... 2nd edition D&D, how I miss you.

[SCRawl]

Ah... 2nd edition D&D, how I miss you.

Bah. If you're not playing first edition AD&D while drinking Coca-Cola Classic and eating peanut M&Ms (allowable substitution: chocolate-covered almonds) while listening to "Piper at the Gates of Dawn" then you're not really playing D&D. Seriously.*






* Not really seriously.

[Khaat]

This is the king of bad ideas. "Be Careful What You Wish For" will go into great detail why this idea sucks. But enslaving a megapowerful dude and hoping his hyperintelligent ass can't find a loophole in his bindings is pretty much the definition of wild eyed optimism.

you are assuming:
1) the Prisoner has goals contrary to the common good (the idea was he came into conflict with a Guild of mages, not all the powers-that-be, right?)
2) the "Guild knows best" (seriously, who ever believes that?)
3) the King sides with the Guild (against the Prisoner)
4) the Prisoner is "enslaved". (nowhere in my presentation was he there against his will, but rather voluntarily cooperating with a non-Guild authority while directing efforts toward his goal. can you think of a way an oath can be extracted against someone's will? i seem to recall that being a big specific exclusion throughout the history of most game mechanics.

"i do vow and affirm that i will no longer rise into confrontation against the Guild" - of course it has loop-holes! he stays seated when delivering the missions! he never takes a direct hand! that's the point! the King just wants to keep these damnable mages from blowing up the kingdom, to hell with all of them!

this "hyper-intelligent, mega-powerful dude" has motives. clearly these motives are not best enacted through standard open warfare, since they are devastating.
"congratulations! you've just managed to destroy your third kingdom in open conflict! what are you going to do now?"
"i'm going to raze Disneyland!"

yeah, you're thinking "traditional drama" re: "careful what you wish for". i'm thinking "honor has its place", and always makes for a better story than limitless power. building in loopholes for that drama makes for a richer story. before this guy was the arch-enemy of an entire guild, he was a man with goals, friends, family, hopes, dreams. something changed that, and the bad guy doesn't have to be who you think it is. the King could be a friend of old, the Guild the bully. Maybe it's just a power-grab in the Guild by a rival the Prisoner snubbed when they were both young: the Prisoner amassed arcane power, the rival wormed her way into the hearts of the Guild leadership. this all started with a break-in at the Guild, maybe he was trying to recover proof of his rival's crimes.

maybe the "lawful good" government as-is is oppressive (easily), a tyranny in one form or another (hell, they always are, people are not the same), or just plain irresponsible (a stable society has no need of adventurers! "the city guard can take care of it! the army can take care of it!") thus my allowance for "if it fits your game style".

if i wanted just cut and dry rules, i would have stopped learning games after "rock-paper-scissors".

i apologize if it didn't make my original point clear, i did shift gears several times through that post (and this).

[Imperial Overlord]

Binding someone magically is enslavement. Enslaving really powerful, really intelligent beings tends to backfire on people who don't have the means to put them down. Putting them down is by far the safer long term option. It's that simple.

As for the wizard in question having motives and goals of his own, of course he does. Freedom and revenge will top just about everyone in that position's list.

As for bindings against the person's will there's a whole bunch from charm to dominate to geas to quest and that's just the common ones. If he's not bound against his will or under duress he's not a prisoner and if he's not a prisoner then it's irrelevant to this thread which is about keeping a high level wizard as a prisoner.

[Khaat]

Binding someone magically is enslavement.

binding someone magically can be the price of magic, if that's the way you want it to work ("you don't have to take the oath, but we can't teach you if you don't, and you can't learn it.") priest serve gods, why not bind mages to the source of their power, the land and through that, to the king?(okay, just one metaphysics example.)

Enslaving really powerful, really intelligent beings tends to backfire on people who don't have the means to put them down. Putting them down is by far the safer long term option. It's that simple.

true, but where's the story in that?
Vader was ordered to kill Luke, but appealed to the Emperor's vanity: "if he could be turned, he would be a powerful ally." it back-fired on the Emperor, for sure, but served to redeem Vader, contrary to their original intentions. hubris -> drama -> resolution. more entertaining than "General, begin orbital bombardment immediately." "shame about Bespin." "yeah, they had lovely sunsets."

As for the wizard in question having motives and goals of his own, of course he does. Freedom and revenge will top just about everyone in that position's list.

freedom from the distraction of the Guild? revenge on whom, exactly? we haven't really been given that. everyone? a personal enemy? a specific profession? (death to cobblers! i had a terrible pair of shoes once, so all cobblers must die!) in my example, it isn't even the whole Guild, just that one who turned the Guild against the Prisoner. we need more information.

As for bindings against the person's will there's a whole bunch from charm to dominate to geas to quest and that's just the common ones. If he's not bound against his will or under duress he's not a prisoner and if he's not a prisoner then it's irrelevant to this thread which is about keeping a high level wizard as a prisoner.

i don't believe any of those are "no save, gotta do it" spells, especially against an "epic level mage". "prisoner" is a word, a name. you know the power of names, right? and you know the difference between "folklore" and "history"?

i suggested the "why, when, where, who (of an engaging story)" instead of "how (of rules)". you do not have to agree.

my version-
the Guild must defer to the throne that he is a "prisoner" (concession), and in exchange, they are not punished for their responsibility in the damage done in the conflict (benefit). the throne gets an adviser, the adviser gets someone else to mind the Guild (benefit) and gets on about his other business, in exchange for "plot hooks for dummies" (concession).

official story: the Prisoner and the Guild battled, the king brought a close to the conflict.
Truth: the Guild (or part of it) did some very bad things, the Prisoner did some very bad things, the king ended it.
prisoner under lock and key (and game mechanics) or prisoner under honor. which version makes the better story?

you brought up the "careful for what you wish for". i loved the monkey paw story when i was little. i just knew it would turn out badly. when it did, i saw that (the story's) reality worked like it should (consistent, reliable, predictable) without wondering, "what level mage created the damned thing in the first place?"

you know what, Imperial Overlord's right: just kill him. have scribes from the Guild pilfer his library for plot hooks. just be ready for the player who wants to have the character who was this epic guy's apprentice or child or something and wants revenge for... oh, wait: doesn't matter. we're only here for the XP! GAME ON!

[CaptainChewbacca]

This guy seems more like a Magneto than a Sylar-type, and as such he's probably accepting his stint in prison as 'biding his time' until he gets out. As far as mental enslavement/binding, against an intellect like that you would have to have an equal or greater intellect constantly focusing on keeping his mind under control, which could get... expensive.

Really, mental domination isn't the way to go with hypermages.

[Imperial Overlord]

binding someone magically can be the price of magic, if that's the way you want it to work ("you don't have to take the oath, but we can't teach you if you don't, and you can't learn it.") priest serve gods, why not bind mages to the source of their power, the land and through that, to the king?(okay, just one metaphysics example.)

If they find that bargain agreeable, it's not imprisonment and enslavement. The topic is imprisonment.

true, but where's the story in that?
Vader was ordered to kill Luke, but appealed to the Emperor's vanity: "if he could be turned, he would be a powerful ally." it back-fired on the Emperor, for sure, but served to redeem Vader, contrary to their original intentions. hubris -> drama -> resolution. more entertaining than "General, begin orbital bombardment immediately." "shame about Bespin." "yeah, they had lovely sunsets."

In your example both Vader and the Emperor agree that Luke is too dangerous to be allowed to live unless he joins them. They aren't plotting to keep him in a cage indefinitely, they're plotting to convert him or kill him. Your example supports my argument.

freedom from the distraction of the Guild? revenge on whom, exactly? we haven't really been given that. everyone? a personal enemy? a specific profession? (death to cobblers! i had a terrible pair of shoes once, so all cobblers must die!) in my example, it isn't even the whole Guild, just that one who turned the Guild against the Prisoner. we need more information.

Again, the topic is imprisonment, says so in the title.

i don't believe any of those are "no save, gotta do it" spells, especially against an "epic level mage". "prisoner" is a word, a name. you know the power of names, right? and you know the difference between "folklore" and "history"?

What does a saving throw have to do with anything? Those can be failed and geas, for example, doesn't off much of one.

What does the power of names have to do with the scenario? You're babbling.

What does the difference between "folklore" and "history" have to do with the scenario? The DM is creating a world that has to seem to be plausible and be stuffed full of all kinds of magical wonder. He needs a plausible world and history, whatever sources he draws upon to create the fantastic parts.

We're creating a plausible reason to keep a very dangerous individual as a captive. That's it.

i suggested the "why, when, where, who (of an engaging story)" instead of "how (of rules)". you do not have to agree.

Since my suggestions were story and character centered and not game mechanics centered I really don't see your point.

my version-
the Guild must defer to the throne that he is a "prisoner" (concession), and in exchange, they are not punished for their responsibility in the damage done in the conflict (benefit). the throne gets an adviser, the adviser gets someone else to mind the Guild (benefit) and gets on about his other business, in exchange for "plot hooks for dummies" (concession).

official story: the Prisoner and the Guild battled, the king brought a close to the conflict.
Truth: the Guild (or part of it) did some very bad things, the Prisoner did some very bad things, the king ended it.
prisoner under lock and key (and game mechanics) or prisoner under honor. which version makes the better story?

That's pretty incoherent. There's a preview function and you really should use it. Some of your sentences don't make much sense and for the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster please capitalize your sentences. From what I can you're suggesting a background where the crown and mages came into conflict and the crown won. Mages agree to a magical binding and service. That's fine, but that doesn't make them the dangerous prisoners of this scenario. If the mages forced into a magical binding and servitude that they resent and they're at the ops power level and they're doing the job because no one can do it better then you're back to a tiger by the tail scenario.