Talk:Malconvoker (3.5e Feat)

Ratings

	The bluez in the dungeon favors this article and rated it 4 of 4!
	This is nice, could be used with or without the malconvoker prc with good effectiveness

"without risking an alignment change"

So a good-aligned wizard researches an [evil] summon fire elemental spell and uses it to burn down orphanages and destroy good holy relics. Since he has this feat and used an [evil] spell, it doesn't affect his alignment?

If that was what you intended, then that sentence should be split into two. The bit about avoiding casting restrictions would be in a separate sentence.

If that was not what you intended, then clarification is needed.

I have to wonder if you intended this as a reference to a rule in some book I don't own. Perhaps the Book of Vile Darkness?

Or perhaps to that wonky houserule/misinterpretation that causes some online forum claims that paladins will fall if they cast a Specific spell on the paladin list? --Ideasmith‎ (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You can cast Summon Monster to summon a fiendish viper without effectively committing an evil act. This is a feat version of the Malconvoker PrC from Complete Scoundrel. If that is a misunderstanding, then it does not matter, because a similar clause is found on that class and its official WotC. As far as wording, I don’t see the need for clarification, but I will take the feedback in consideration and ask others. --Leziad (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I am well aware that 3.5 lets casters "cast Summon Monster to summon a fiendish viper without effectively committing an evil act". I'm not sure why you felt moved to point that out. Was the feat's wording intended to say that tthey still can, even with this feat? Just in case someone might think otherwise?

If information in the Complete Scoundrel is needed to understand this feat, shouldn't readers be informed of that on the feat webpage?Ideasmith (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

In standard WoTC rules casting spells with the [Evil] descriptor is an evil act in itself, whether you use their effects for good or evil purposes. This feat is meant to prevent a non-evil caster to suffer alignment-related consequences from summoning or calling evil creatures, tying itself to the Malconvoker PrC's lore (cleverly, if I might say). Having said that, it may be confusing to some people and I suggest to clarify with something like this: "This feat allows the caster to avoid moral consequences due to the act of casting an [Evil] spell, but not to avoid the consequences of following events or effects". --The bluez in the dungeon (talk) 11:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what allegedly "standard" rules you could be referring to. They could not possibly be as standard for 3.5 as the rules in the PH (page 104 "GOOD VS. EVIL"). (See also SRD Alignment) Therefore, the questions for determining whether an action is Evil in standard 3.5 are are:

Does the action "debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit"?

Does the action involve "hurting, oppressing, and killing others"?

Is the action intended to "debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit"?

Is the action intended to cause "hurting, oppressing, and killing others"?

(These questions are not in order of importance, since the PH does not specify order of importance.)

Naturally, DMs can use rules from other sources, and can and should houserule to suit their personal style, players, and plans. But when posting rules for complete strangers to download, one should warn them of such nonstandard assumptions.

I don't find your suggested clarification at all clarifying. Ideasmith (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It might not be in the SRD, frankly I don't care enough to dig it up. But it is on the Malconvoker PrC, so it is officially in WotC content. You are free to just ignore it, most people do. The passage is there just in case a group does use this rule, and it is just vague as the WotC’s. I feel that adding additional endless calcification will just make the feat an obnoxious wall of text. --Leziad (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Ideasmith, casting a spell with the [Evil] descriptor is an evil act in itself, so much that clerics with a good alignment can't do it without losing favor with their deity. It doesn't matter if the cleric did it to save an old lady or perform any sort of act generally considered to be good. This feat allows non evil clerics to use some conjuration spells without risking their divine magic. It can reasonably be argued that this should not be the case, but as far as the PH is concerned casting a spell with an alignment description is considered to act accordingly to that alignment, with no regard to circumstances. --The bluez in the dungeon (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Leziad: If by 'it' , you mean some rule that makes the [evil] descriptor inherently evil, then in addition to not being in the SRD, it is also not in the PH, the DMG or the MM.

I don't know whether such a rule is in the Complete Scoundrel, since I didn't know that book existed until you mentioned it. As I implied above, I expect that many 3.5 groups don't have it, and likely haven't heard of the rule you are referencing. I don't think someone who has never heard of a rule will be able to identify references to said rule, and I therefore don't think said someone will know to ignore them as references to that rule.

While there is such a thing as too much explanation, there is also such a thing as too little.

The bluez in the dungeon: Your claims about what the PH says contradict what I see when I read the PH. Since you are forcing a choice, I believe my own eyes rather than your claims.

As for some Clerics being unable to cast [evil] descriptor spells, (PH page 33):

First, as with the immediately preceding rules for spontaneous casting, this seems to only apply to Cleric spells, (with an equivalent rule for Druid spells). So a good multiclass Wizard/Cleric could prepare and cast protection from evil as a WIzard Spell, but could not channel the slot so used into cure light wounds.

Second, they are only prohibited from casting the spells, not from using any [evil] descriptor spell-trigger items the DM might include in the game.

Third, casting an [evil] descriptor spell isn't inherently evil (per the rulebooks in existence about when the PH was published).

Fourth, the rulebooks, as usual, don't give an in-game reason for the restriction, leaving that for the DM to decide.

Judging by the above, Cleric casting is so restricted for some other reason That doesn't stop individual DMs from making that the reason in their worlds; doing so just calls for some house rules. Adjusting the rules to fit the world the DM created is part of D&D.

Oops: On going back and looking at the online argument I was referencing, it was not the Paladin that allegedly got in trouble for casting a spell on it's list, but two classes from books I don't own. The double-checking there was not up to my usual standards. My apologies for the error. Ideasmith (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I actually looked into it, and casting an evil spell is an evil action as per Book of Vile Darkness (page 8) in addition to the reference in Complete Scoundrel. So there we go, a reference in 3.0 and 3.5e. As far as my feat, it specifically says you can cast such spells without risking an alignment change. The action of casting precedes any action undertaken after the casting the spell. Since casting has a very strict definition in DnD and this feat only mentions casting. Therefore the feat does not cover anything happening after the casting, such as burning an orphanage or whatever. I actually do see a weakness in my wording, BoVD also says that consorting with evil outsiders is inherently evil. So I needed to add that in. --Leziad (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I pulled this from a forum so you might want to double check it:

"Player's Handbook, 174 (Descriptor): The descriptors are ... evil .... Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with ... alignment, and so on.

Player's Handbook, 32 (Cleric, Spells): However, his alignment may restrict hom from casting certain spells opposed to his moral or ethical beliefs.

Player's Handbook, 33 (Cleric, ... Evil ... Spells): A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to his own or hos deity's. For example, a good cleirc cannot cast evil spells.

Book of Vile Darkness, 77 (Evil Spells): Spells that have the evil descriptor because they do one or more of the following things: they cause undue suffering or negative emotions; they call upon evil gods or energies; they create, summon, or improve undead or other evil monsters; they harm souls; they involve unsavory practices such as cannibalism or drug use."

Anyway imo it should have been sufficient to say that performing a thing that has an EVIL tag slapped onto it should be evil in itself, especially considering black and white approach that DnD has. --The bluez in the dungeon (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)