Exalted Feats and Evil Spells?

[magicalmagicman]

If you cast a spell with an Evil Descriptor, do you lose all exalted feats irrevocably?

I've been clawing through BoED, and the exact language says "A character who willingly and willfully commits an evil act loses all benefits from all his exalted feats."

Is casting evil spells an evil act? Even if it is used for good? I know real world logic says I'm good but how about d&d logic?

[JNAProductions]

D&D Logic? I think so.

That being said, ask your DM.

[Malimar]

It's commonly accepted that casting an [evil] spell is an evil act. After a brief search, I can't find any rules text backing this up other than:

Tapping into evil power is an evil act in and of itself, no matter what the effects or the reason for using the power might be.
Given that quote, yes, as soon as you cast an [evil] spell you cease to be Exalted and lose the benefits of all your [exalted] feats forever.

EDIT: Psyren is absolutely right!

[Psyren]

If you cast a spell with an Evil Descriptor, do you lose all exalted feats irrevocably?

Technically no! As your own quote demonstrates, you simply lose the benefits of the feats. You do get to keep the feats themselves :smalltongue:

[Zaq]

Technically no! As your own quote demonstrates, you simply lose the benefits of the feats. You do get to keep the feats themselves :smalltongue:

Wait, does that mean that you keep any drawbacks of the feats? Huh. That’s kind of an unusual punishment. But totally what I’d expect out of the Book of Exalted Darkness Deeds.

At least Tem-Et-Nu just sends an infalliable interdimensional hippo to chomp on you.

[Psyren]

Do any of them have actual drawbacks? Besides "stay good or else" I mean.

[Telonius]

Possibly Nymph's Kiss, depending on how much of a drawback it is to provide the DM with an easy kidnapping target.

[Necroticplague]

If you cast a spell with an Evil Descriptor, do you lose all exalted feats irrevocably?

I've been clawing through BoED, and the exact language says "A character who willingly and willfully commits an evil act loses all benefits from all his exalted feats."

Is casting evil spells an evil act? Even if it is used for good? I know real world logic says I'm good but how about d&d logic?

Yes, it is. It's a minor evil act, but still an evil act.

[Bullet06320]

Malconvoker's Unrestricted Conjuration feature would get around it, but only for conjuration spells


Unrestricted Conjuration: For the purpose only of casting conjuration spells, you can ignore any restrictions that forbid you from casting spells of certain alignments. 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). The cleric could not cast death knell, though, which has the evil descriptor but is not of the conjuration school.

bolded for emphasis

[hamishspence]

It's commonly accepted that casting an [evil] spell is an evil act. After a brief search, I can't find any rules text backing this up other than:

Given that quote, yes, as soon as you cast an [evil] spell you cease to be Exalted and lose the benefits of all your [exalted] feats forever.

Not forever - only until you atone enough to become "Exalted" again. Unless the feat, in its own text, specifies "forever".

The Saint PRC has a "cannot take levels in, if you've lost Exalted feats through doing evil, even if you get them back again" rule - which implies that "ordinary" exalted feats, can be gotten back.

[daremetoidareyo]

what if you use sanctify spell on the evil spell first? making it an [evil][good] spell.

[hamishspence]

what if you use sanctify spell on the evil spell first? making it an [evil][good] spell.

I was under the impression "May not be used on spells with the [evil] descriptor" was included in the feat description.

[daremetoidareyo]

I was under the impression "May not be used on spells with the [evil] descriptor" was included in the feat description.

Both purify spell and consecrate spell have nothing like that.

[Crake]

Malconvoker's Unrestricted Conjuration feature would get around it, but only for conjuration spells



bolded for emphasis

Actually, that only removes restrictions, not consequences. A good cleric couldn't cast an evil spell even if they wanted to, but malconvoker removes that restriction. It also prevents your alignment from changing due to repeated castings of evil spells, but again, doing so is still an evil act, and thus the consequences would be the loss of all exalted feats.


what if you use sanctify spell on the evil spell first? making it an [evil][good] spell.

It still has the evil descriptor, which makes casting it an evil act.

[Telonius]

I think the main takeaway is that Exalted status is not an alignment. You can lose Exalted status by committing an evil act, while still retaining Good alignment. Normally repeated use of [Evil] spells threatens to change your alignment as well as losing Exalted status. Malconvoker's wording prevents the alignment change, but doesn't prevent loss of Exalted status.

[Bullet06320]

fair point, about the wording there, only the restrictions not consequences