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)

Leziad:

"So there we go, a reference in 3.0": I was flabbergasted to read this: I was taking it for granted that books written for previous versions of D&D were not standard for 3.5. This turns out to be confirmed in the PH, on page 5: The list of books needed for play on that page contains no 3.0 books (although page 4 does establish that 3.0 books "can" be used). So even if the BoVD is 3.0, that does not make it more standard for 3.5 than the rules in the PH .

I suggest adding the following wordage to the summary: 'This feat uses alignment rules from the Book of Vile Darkness.' (I gather that someone who knows the Book of Vile Darkness alignment system would understand this feat just fine. )

"casting has a very strict definition in DnD and this feat only mentions casting": Good point, and my apologies for the poor example. New Example: Now the wizard is using dispel good to banish a good outsider who is guarding an orphanage he wants to burn down.

The bluez in the dungeon:

"Player's Handbook, 174": Some descriptors, including [evil], do interact with alignment: The alignment of a Cleric or Druid determines whether they can cast spells with that descriptor. That is the sort of thing this rule is referring to. Other interactions may be mentioned in books that D&D 3.5 DMs might or might not use, might or might not have read, might or might not own, and might or might not care to shell out money for.

"Player's Handbook, 32": This does indicate some relationship between alignments and the descriptors which are named after them. It is vague about what that relationship might be. The fact that an [evil] spell is on the Paladin spell list makes it clear that casting an [evil] spell is not always an [evil] act.

"Player's Handbook, 33": It is clear from the context here that they are referring to descriptors rather than alignment. Spelling out that they were doing so would have grated on the reader: I am sure that the designers knew that when choosing the wording.

"Book of Vile Darkness": The Book of Vile Darkness clearly counts as a book that D&D 3.5 DMs might or might not use, might or might not have read, might or might not own, and might or might not care to shell out money for.

"performing a thing that has an EVIL tag slapped onto it should be evil in itself": That is a rather melodramatic description of the [evil] descriptor. Do you apply the same logic to other descriptors, such as [water]?

"black and white approach that DnD has": I'm not seeing what you mean by "black and white approach", why you think D&D has one, or what that has to do with descriptor/alignment interactions.

(resetting indentation, or whatever.) Why are you bothering after more than a year since the last reply? Anyway Book of Exalted Deeds also has a reference on aligned spells, much like BovD. Frankly this is all rather meaningless, you are pulling hairs. Here is the passage from Complete Scoundrel (definitely 3.5), which this feat is based on:

"In addition, regular use of conjuration spells with the evil descriptor does not threaten to change your alignment. For example, a good cleric who becomes a malconvoker could cast summon monster I to summon a fiendish raven (whose alignment gives the spell the evil descriptor)."

No matter what you think, no matter what you write: WotC decided to include this clause in. So I added it in too. That's it. Btw your dispel good example is absolutely nonsensical. For one it isn't a conjuration [calling] or [summoning], second you could use the banishment spell for the same purpose, and it would have the same moral implications. So I don't see what it has to do with this feat. --Leziad (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

What Leziad said -- The bluez in the dungeon (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

"Why are you bothering after more than a year since the last reply? ": With written conversation, I prefer more thought/double-checking rather than more speed. This page wasn't likely to go away.

"Book of Exalted Deeds also": And is also irrelevant, for the same reasons as the BovD.

"pulling hairs": I haven't seen/heard this idiom before. When I googled it, all the hits were about some medical condition.

"In addition, regular use of conjuration spells with the evil descriptor does not threaten to change your alignment.": It sure doesn't, but I don't think that's what you intended to write. I don't know why you were quoting (or trying to quote?) from the Complete Scoundrel anyway.

"WotC decided to include this clause in.": It didn't include the clause in any book needed to play 3.5. It included the clause in some splatbooks that many have happily ignored so far, and intend to continue ignoring.

"For one it isn't a conjuration [calling] or [summoning],": My apologies for not rereading the feat conscientiously enough to catch that.

So a DM who learns this feat enough to allow it in his/her game will simply find some of the wording redundant (and perhaps have made guesses as to why it was included). Not nearly as bad as I thought, though still a bit annoying.

"it would have the same moral implications": This looks like a huge exception to the splatbook rule under discussion. There are a lot of uses of [evil] spells that have the same moral implications as a not-[evil] spell which exist or could be researched.

Whether you approve of it or not, many 3.5 groups use WotC's list of books needed for play rather than yours, and many of those don't use the splatbooks you mentioned. When someone from such a group sees your feat, do you care whether they think you don't understand the standard alignment system? If you don't, then you can leave the feat as is.Ideasmith (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Ideasmith, you are using mainly the argument that the explanation given in a splatbook isn't as valid as the core material since players can simply ignore it. Beside the merit of the point itself, you are arguing that on a homebrew wiki: to make content oriented to the maximum number of players isn't the goal of the site, because the use of an extensive homebrew wiki is even more niche than a splatbook (and who even plays 3.5e nowadays). So, for the public this is intended for, mostly wiki-users, and more generally those that are knowledgeable about the system, this is pretty straightforward content, being just a feat version of a prc concept. And even if someone doesn't know about the prc and finds this feat by chance, it should be a time to learn, not argue. --The bluez in the dungeon (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I think some material being vague can actually be somewhat helpful, at least within reason. It allows each group to make an individual decision on the material in question that isn't binding to other groups. In this case, what I wrote isn't at all vague. "You are able to cast conjuration (summoning) and conjuration (calling) spells with the [evil] descriptor without risking an alignment change and may cast such spells even if it would be prohibited by your alignment (such as being a cleric). You also do not commit any inherent evil act by consorting with evil creature you conjure, as long as you do not use their aid for an evil act, or further the goals of evil as payment." The second sentence here should end any doubt that you can burn down an orphanage with an evil fire elemental.

As far as the idiom I mixed a French and an English one. What I meant is splitting hairs. --Leziad (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The bluez in the dungeon:

"you are using mainly the argument that the explanation given in a splatbook isn't as valid as the core material since players can simply ignore it"

That is not an argument I am using. My actual reasons for calling splatbooks less valid (for some value of the word 'valid'):

1. WotC indicated that they were less valid. (Players Handbook, page 5, "WHAT YOU NEED TO PLAY")

2. Splatbook material is much more likely to be ignored than core material.

"you are arguing that on a homebrew wiki: to make content oriented to the maximum number of players isn't the goal of the site"

People who post homebrew here want it to be used. Homebrew that more people can use is more apt to be used.

"the use of an extensive homebrew wiki is even more niche than a splatbook"

I've seen this claim made on the internet before. Do you have actual evidence?

"(and who even plays 3.5e nowadays)"

Enough people to make this conversation worth having.

"for the public this is intended for,"

Which appears to be all players/DMs of the listed editions of D&D. No splatbook purchase requirements are implied. If splatbook purchase requirements were intended for using this wiki, wouldn't the Main Page of this wiki have said so?

"mostly wiki-users, and more generally those that are knowledgeable about the system"

Whether one understands this feat does not depend on whether one is a wiki-user or knowledgeable about 3.5, but rather one's splat-book purchases.

"it should be a time to learn"

I in fact am learning from this discussion.

"not argue"

I find argument useful for learning.

Leziad:

"some material being vague can actually be somewhat helpful, at least within reason. It allows each group to make an individual decision on the "

While unclear rules can certainly have this benefit, and writing rules that do this is very appropriate for D&D, I question whether inclarity about which alignment system this feat assumes has this benefit.

"any doubt that you can burn down an orphanage with an evil fire elemental"

I now agree that on a careful reading there isn't any, and that your feat's opening wording is merely weirdly redundant. I am taking your word that using the splatbooks you mention would make it unredundant, since I don't care whether or not they would. (Certainly not enough to acquire PDFs of them.)

My apologies for the uncareful reading that started this conversation in the manner it did.

"What I meant is splitting hairs"

In that case: What distinctions are you calling small and unnecessary? Ideasmith (talk) 22:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I legitimately don't understand what your problem is here, Ideasmith. If you don't like the idea of casting [Evil] spells risking an alignment change, take your umbrage to WotC who printed it in Complete Scoundrel under the Malconvoker class (which this feat is designed to replace). If your playgroup doesn't use that rule, great! Ignore it! Surgo (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"If you don't like" I am surprised you bring up my (alleged) opinion of that rule; isn't it obvious I don't know enough about it for said opinion to be worth mentioning?

"take your umbrage to WotC" WotC spelled out which books were needed to play in the Player's Handbook, page 5. I am not blaming that game company for discretionary books being treated as needed to play. They would have had to behave wrongly to prevent such, and I am not taking "umbrage" at them for failing to do so. In fact, I am not taking umbrage at anyone over this.

"Ignore it" That's what I was doing before this conversation started, am doing when not thinking about this conversation, and will be doing when this conversation is over. (Not having read any of the books this rule appears in makes it easier to ignore.) The reason I don't entirely ignore it during this conversation is that Leziad made paying some attention to it needful for understanding this feat. That limits my ability to ignore it during this conversation.

"I legitimately don't understand what your problem is here" As far as I've noticed, I have no problem here. I am having an interesting and useful discussion, and have hopes that everyone else involved also finds it interesting and useful.

That said, it looks like high time to spell out what I am suggesting and why I consider it a good idea:

I am suggesting that Leziad add a notice to this article spelling out which relevant discretionary books are assumed to be in use.

One likely advantage is that gamers who would otherwise like this feat would be less apt to be put off by the opening words. (Knowing which discretionary books (if any) are assumed can prevent unfortunate/confusing assumptions.)

Another likely advantage is that Leziad is less apt to see confused reactions on this talk page. (In my experience, people who post on talk pages on this site don't always think to first read what's already on the talk page.) Ideasmith (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)