Can Malconvokers use Exalted feats?

[magicalmagicman]

I love malconvoker. It's been the only PrC I've been playing for virtually my entire d&d career.

However I covet feats like Vow of Poverty. I know people say Vow of Poverty is terrible but I don't care. I love playing equipment independent characters.

Now the problem with Malconvokers is BoVD

Evil Acts that are set in stone(from BoVD)
Lying
Cheating
Theft
Betrayal
Murder
Vengeance
Worshiping Evil Deities/Creatures
Animating/Creating Undead
Casting Evil Spells
Damning or Harming Souls
Consorting with Fiends
Creating Evil Creatures
Using Others for Personal Gain
Greed
Bullying and Cowing Innocents
Bringing Despair
Tempting Others

The bolded ones are the ones that conflict with Malconvoker. However BoVD does have a lifeline for me.


GRAY AREAS
Even with the most black-and-white, objective approach
to good and evil, gray areas will always exist. Consider this
example: A terrible disease has come to the village of
Varro, and the cure lies in the heartwood of the sacred
trees of the Varrowood. The villagers go into the wood to
get the cure. The druids of the Varrowood believe that the
trees are holy and should not be violated. They try to stop
the villagers. Is either side truly evil in this scenario?
Probably not.
Not all conflicts are based on good versus evil. It is possible
for two good nations to go to war. It is likely that two evil
nations will go to war. Is it evil for your character to kill a good
character if your character’s kingdom is at war with his? That’s
certainly a gray area. Characters who are extremely strict in
their moral outlook should examine the reasons behind the
war very closely. In general, quarter should be given and
accepted. Such a character should cause no more damage and
inflict no more harm than is necessary. If possible, he or she
should find a different way to resolve the conflict.

So if killing a good character like a Celestial is sometimes not evil, then that means morality is not set in stone like RAW rules in d&d right? That means consorting with fiends and using others for yourself is sometimes not evil right? It's not good but as long as it's not evil I don't lose the benefits of exalted feats right?

Ultimately this is all FLUFF, and Malconvoker's fluff is to make evil fight each other right? And Malconvokers can be dedicated to good right? Despite consorting with fiends and making them do all his dirty work, it is Malconvoker's fluff that they defy normal morality so that they can do these "evil" acts and stay super good right? So that means a Lawful Good malconvoker dedicated to good who forces fiends to fight other fiends is ultimately able to use exalted feats right?

Am I rationalizing? Yes I am. Now I don't know whether my rationalizations are correct, so I'd like to hear your opinions on the matter.

[Inevitability]

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.

I'd argue that this ability covers the entire 'but evil!' part of the summoning.

Granted, RAW it may not work out, but the RAW result is silly (in that case, summonings would be evil acts that can't change your alignment but are still evil) so your DM should hopefully accept it.

[Rebel7284]

Casting evil spells is defined as as evil action. While Malconvokers can certainly have good alignment, I think the whole "doing evil things in the name of good" would typically disqualify them from exalted status. Maybe if you can get Consecrate Spell on all your summons... but then they would be both evil and good at the same time RAW.

However, it's very common to house-rule the rigid system of morality in D&D into something more flexible. Talk to your DM and see if you can come up with a code of conduct that's sufficiently compassionate for exalted status while allowing you to be a Malconvoker.

[Troacctid]

Opinions differ, even in-universe.

https://i.imgur.com/r4TnIR1.png
Exalted feats are given as gifts from powerful agents of good—deities, celestials, or similar creatures (BE 39). So I think the reasonable answer would be that it depends on who's giving you the gift! They're the ones who would have to be okay with it. I imagine different deities and celestials would probably have very different opinions, depending on their alignments and personalities.

[DarkSoul]

Can they use the feats? In my opinion, absolutely not. The "Ends and Means" section on page 9 of the Book of Exalted Deeds makes it pretty clear to me.

[Troacctid]

Can they use the feats? In my opinion, absolutely not. The "Ends and Means" section on page 9 of the Book of Exalted Deeds makes it pretty clear to me.

You're referring to this section?

Sometimes a situation might demand that a good character cooperate with an evil one in order to accomplish a worthy and righteous goal. The evil character might not even be pursuing the same goal. For example, a brief civil war has put a new ruling house in power in a drow city, and the new rulers start actively raiding the surface world. A party of good adventurers travels into the depths of the earth to stop the drow raids. At the same time, a party of evil drow loyal to the deposed house seeks to overthrow the new rulers and restore their house to its position of power. The two groups have different but mutually compatible goals, and it is possible—within certain limits—for them to cooperate with each other. However, the good characters must not tolerate any evil acts committed by an evil ally during the time of their alliance, and can’t simply turn a blind eye to such acts. They must ensure that helping the drow will put a stop to the surface raids, which might entail a level of trust the drow simply do not deserve. And of course they must not turn on their erstwhile allies when victory is in sight, betraying the trust the drow placed in them. Such a situation is dangerous both physically and morally, but cooperating with evil creatures is not necessarily evil in itself.

[magicalmagicman]

Opinions differ, even in-universe.

Exalted feats are given as gifts from powerful agents of good—deities, celestials, or similar creatures (BE 39). So I think the reasonable answer would be that it depends on who's giving you the gift! They're the ones who would have to be okay with it. I imagine different deities and celestials would probably have very different opinions, depending on their alignments and personalities.

I think this is a very valid viewpoint!


Can they use the feats? In my opinion, absolutely not. The "Ends and Means" section on page 9 of the Book of Exalted Deeds makes it pretty clear to me.

I think that section actually helps my side of the argument. Working with evil is not necessarily evil, which is just what I needed!

[BowStreetRunner]

I would agree with Troacctid here, in particular ' it depends on who's giving you the gift'. Which makes this a highly DM and Role-Play dependent issue. It wouldn't be appropriate in every game, but it would be appropriate in some games. In particular, this sort of character seems like the type of person who would appear in a Hellblazer comic based campaign, but not necessarily in a game ported over from the Holy Lands RPG.

[DarkSoul]

You're referring to this section?No, I'm referring to the entire section, to be read and applied as a whole, but if I were to pick a specific section to sum up my opinion, it would be this one:


In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood. Any exalted character risks losing exalted feats or other benefits of celestial favor if he commits any act of evil for any reason. Whether or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly cannot make evil means any less evil.Malconvoker's Unrestricted Conjuration class ability says the Malconvoker doesn't have to worry about their alignment changing due to casting [Evil] spells. It doesn't say that casting [Evil] spells is no longer an evil act.


I think that section actually helps my side of the argument. Working with evil is not necessarily evil, which is just what I needed!No, it doesn't. Read the entire section. Casting an evil spell is still an evil act. You're still bringing literal evil incarnate into the world, which can have permanent corrupting effects on the world (BoVD pg. 35).

[Deophaun]

Exalted feats are given as gifts from powerful agents of good—deities, celestials, or similar creatures (BE 39). So I think the reasonable answer would be that it depends on who's giving you the gift! They're the ones who would have to be okay with it. I imagine different deities and celestials would probably have very different opinions, depending on their alignments and personalities.
The problem is, the Vile Pact's origin is unknown and it's even suspected that a darker power may be behind it.

But, even if you throw that away, Malconvokers play with fire as a matter of course. Their conjurations can go wrong, unleashing a fiend upon the world either temporarily or permanently. For an Exalted character who is supposed to be gooder than Good, that's unacceptable behavior.

[Red Fel]

No, I'm referring to the entire section, to be read and applied as a whole, but if I were to pick a specific section to sum up my opinion, it would be this one:

Malconvoker's Unrestricted Conjuration class ability says the Malconvoker doesn't have to worry about their alignment changing due to casting [Evil] spells. It doesn't say that casting [Evil] spells is no longer an evil act.

I agree with this statement. The fact that a Malconvoker's alignment isn't penalized for casting [Evil] spells doesn't change the fact that the act is still an Evil one. While I happen to think that alignment generally is a gross oversimplification and a bad system in so many ways you guys, just so many, the fact remains that Evil acts are Evil acts, and Exalted feats preclude taking Evil acts, full stop.

Do I think that it would make for an awesome RP hook if you earned your Exalted feats by the beneficence of a patron who was in favor of using Evil's own weapons against it? You bet. Do I think that would justify keeping your Exalted feat as long as you walked that alignment tightrope? Absolutely. Is that a position supported by RAW? I don't think so.

Feel free to Rule 0 that. There's a lot of stuff regarding Exalted feats that almost has to be Rule 0'd to convey the heavy baggage, not only in terms of crunch but also fluff, that goes with holding yourself to such a lofty standard. And if your DM is onboard, roll with it.

But I don't think it's allowed by RAW. Evil acts are Evil acts, whether they ding your alignment or not.

[Telonius]

For what it's worth, in my games I houserule that there is an [Evil] version of Vow of Poverty. The deal was originally crafted by a Falxugon, and used to entrap unwary souls. The deal looked amazing to start with, but actually enriched the Falxugon while making the poor soul who signed it less powerful in the long run.

[Doctor Awkward]

Opinions differ, even in-universe.

Exalted feats are given as gifts from powerful agents of good—deities, celestials, or similar creatures (BE 39). So I think the reasonable answer would be that it depends on who's giving you the gift! They're the ones who would have to be okay with it. I imagine different deities and celestials would probably have very different opinions, depending on their alignments and personalities.

In D&D good and evil are absolutes that exist on a rigidly defined scale.

By definition, the so-called trickster gods referred to in the malconvoker entry that have a high opinion of them are not agents of good (Olidammara is notably chaotic neutral).

While this does not preclude them from working towards good ends-- no more than it precludes anyone with free will from doing so-- that doesn't mean they are capable of granting exalted feats... which are specifically the purview of the highest order of good gods.

[Jowgen]

I... by the Gods, I can't believe I'm saying this... I disagree with Red Fel on this matter pertaining to alignment.

While there certainly there are inherently good and evil acts (killing Fiends and destroying souls come to mind), I don't believe the RAW condemns the Malconvoker's abilities in this fashion. The Conjuring of the Fiends as an "Act" in and off itself is covered by the ability. The only way it wouldn't be is if the forces that arbitrate whether a cleric/paladin-based Malconvoker may continue to access their divine spells are different than those who arbitrate exalted feat status.

Now what matters is what you do once the Fiend is Conjured. You can't do anything to that Fiend that counts as an Evil act. From the Drow example, we know you can't tolerate any Evil acts on its part either (#Pitfall). You also can't "consort" with the Fiend, which is called out as Evil, so the relationship has to remain strictly business. No lying to or betraying the Fiend either (beyond the bluff check that's part of the Conjuration itself), although in terms of betrayal you might get a bit of a paradox, as destroying a Fiend is a "always good" act.

In fluff terms, I do think Troacctid has the right of it for the most part. The exact source of an Exalted feat is left up to the DM to decide, so there is expressed room for the DM to deviate from the rules above. For example, Heironeous might decide to be more strict (after all, he is the same way with his normal followers), while Alobal Lorfiril (CG Trickery domain deity from RotW) would probably care little.

[zergling.exe]

I... by the Gods, I can't believe I'm saying this... I disagree with Red Fel on this matter pertaining to alignment.

While there certainly there are inherently good and evil acts (killing Fiends and destroying souls come to mind), I don't believe the RAW condemns the Malconvoker's abilities in this fashion. The Conjuring of the Fiends as an "Act" in and off itself is covered by the ability. The only way it wouldn't be is if the forces that arbitrate whether a cleric/paladin-based Malconvoker may continue to access their divine spells are different than those who arbitrate exalted feat status.

Now what matters is what you do once the Fiend is Conjured. You can't do anything to that Fiend that counts as an Evil act. From the Drow example, we know you can't tolerate any Evil acts on its part either (#Pitfall). You also can't "consort" with the Fiend, which is called out as Evil, so the relationship has to remain strictly business. No lying to or betraying the Fiend either (beyond the bluff check that's part of the Conjuration itself), although in terms of betrayal you might get a bit of a paradox, as destroying a Fiend is a "always good" act.

In fluff terms, I do think Troacctid has the right of it for the most part. The exact source of an Exalted feat is left up to the DM to decide, so there is expressed room for the DM to deviate from the rules above. For example, Heironeous might decide to be more strict (after all, he is the same way with his normal followers), while Alobal Lorfiril (CG Trickery domain deity from RotW) would probably care little.

I think that a Good god capable of granting exalted feats would be well within bounds to say 'No' to a Malconvoker getting exalted feats as a matter of principle. I mean, Exalted means Goodest of Good right? They want the Exalted character to be a BEACON of Goodness, and a Malconvoker most certainly is not a beacon as they are quite frequently labeled as heretics.

[Psyren]

There's a subtle but clear difference between Good and Exalted Good. Nobody is saying Malconvokers can't be Good. But I completely agree that they are not meeting the very intentionally high standards of Exalted Good.

And for this case in particular, Vow of Poverty is such a trap that by saying no, OP's GM would be doing him a favor anyway.

[RoboEmperor]

And for this case in particular, Vow of Poverty is such a trap that by saying no, OP's GM would be doing him a favor anyway.

It's not a trap. I'd totally give away all of my equipment permanently for that sweet +8/+6/+4/+2 ability enhancement bonus. Save DC is everything on a planar binder. And if you're saying with WBL I'd have +11 to my casting stat, you're right, except DMs man. They either don't go by WBL or they don't let you cherry pick magic items and force some randomized merchant list on you.

The only reason I'm not taking VoP is because enslaving creatures to die for you is evil, malconvoker or not. And I like having minions all the time and I like using them frivolously. And I'm pretty sure the charisma check involved in forcing your will on the planar bound involves death threats.

[Jowgen]

I think that a Good god capable of granting exalted feats would be well within bounds to say 'No' to a Malconvoker getting exalted feats as a matter of principle. I mean, Exalted means Goodest of Good right? They want the Exalted character to be a BEACON of Goodness, and a Malconvoker most certainly is not a beacon as they are quite frequently labeled as heretics.

I think that's more along the line of the Saint template, in that one has to always have been a shining example of Exaltedness, and that it has to be deity approved. Exalted feats can be granted by Celestials (and in one case Fey, apparently) with relatively little hassle. Hell, you could use Create Lantern Archon and have the request be the granting of the feat.

Now a celestial with some importance, even an Eladrin, might indeed look unfavourably upon a Malconvoker; if only because they have a personal hatred for Fiends; but it's not like they'd be risking anything. Saints, again, are elevated as a reward and entrusted with serious mojo, which as written can't be taken away once given, while Exalted feats come with a built-in off switch in case the recipient goes off the rails. It's not a risky investment. Actually makes it more likely that the Malconvoker won't stray off the path (i.e. the obvious occupational hazard).

Now even if all Celestials were to agree that Malconvokers are disqualified from receiving Exalted feats; I'd still maintain that an Exalted character can prestige into Malconvoker and use its abilities without auto-triggering their shut-down, as they are not technically breaking the T&C of the Vow/Contract made.

[Psyren]

It's not a trap. I'd totally give away all of my equipment permanently for that sweet +8/+6/+4/+2 ability enhancement bonus. Save DC is everything on a planar binder. And if you're saying with WBL I'd have +11 to my casting stat, you're right, except DMs man. They either don't go by WBL or they don't let you cherry pick magic items and force some randomized merchant list on you.

Stat boosts aren't the problem with VoP.


The only reason I'm not taking VoP is because enslaving creatures to die for you is evil, malconvoker or not. And I like having minions all the time and I like using them frivolously. And I'm pretty sure the charisma check involved in forcing your will on the planar bound involves death threats.

Now I'm confused - it sounds like we agree a Malconvoker does things that disqualify it from Exalted status. So what's the problem?

[RoboEmperor]

Now I'm confused - it sounds like we agree a Malconvoker does things that disqualify it from Exalted status. So what's the problem?

Just because I disgree with one part of your statement doesn't mean I can't agree with another ^_^.

[Necroticplague]

I'd argue that this ability covers the entire 'but evil!' part of the summoning.
Except it doesn't.


Unrestricted Conjuration: For the purpose only of casting conjuration spells, you can ignore any restrictions that forbid you from casting spells of certain alignments.
This section only refers to things like Good Clerics, who flat-out can't summon Fiends because of aignment restrictions.


In addition, regular use of conjuration spells with the evil descriptor does not threaten to change your alignment.
Note the incredibly specific wording here: it doesn't stop being an evil act, it just stops threatening to change your alignment.

There's nothing in that ability that makes summoning fiends stop being evil (thus allow an Exalted character to use them).

[DarkSoul]

While there certainly there are inherently good and evil acts (killing Fiends and destroying souls come to mind), I don't believe the RAW condemns the Malconvoker's abilities in this fashion. The Conjuring of the Fiends as an "Act" in and off itself is covered by the ability.Casting a spell with the Evil subschool is an inherently evil act. It's in black and white in the BoVD. Malconvokers aren't at risk of changing alignment by conjuring evil creatures, but that doesn't change the fact that the act of doing so is evil, and will cost a character their exalted status or prevent them from gaining it.

As an aside, if the rules from Tyrants of the Nine Hells are in use, a lawful malconvoker who casts 9 evil summons without atoning is automatically consigned to Baator upon death. Might be something to keep in mind when playing one.

[Bullet06320]

RAW probly not
RAI probly not
Rule 0, with good fluff and the right diety, why not, makes for good RP opportunities, the PCs god granted it, but the faithful of the same diety don't agree and brand him a heritic anyways

[Red Fel]

I think that's more along the line of the Saint template, in that one has to always have been a shining example of Exaltedness, and that it has to be deity approved. Exalted feats can be granted by Celestials (and in one case Fey, apparently) with relatively little hassle. Hell, you could use Create Lantern Archon and have the request be the granting of the feat.

See, here I must strongly disagree.

Yes. The Saint template is a reward for shining examples of Exaltedness. But Exalted is a reward for being a shining example of ultra-Good. A Good character could commit an Evil act once or twice and not suffer for it. An Exalted character explicitly loses the benefits of Exalted feats. Even if at your table they're practically free (which I think significantly hurts the fluff of them, and runs contrary to the "only take them with DM permission" advisory in the book), it's clear that Exalted has much higher standards than Good.

This is the point we keep coming back to. Certain characters are unable to cast [Evil] spells for whatever reason, such as Clerics of Good alignment. Malconvoker's class ability explicitly enables them to do so when they otherwise might not be able to. They can ignore restrictions which prevent them from casting these spells; they can't ignore the fact that doing so is an Evil act.

Even if you take a nuanced read of alignment - which is something I recommend doing - and say that a Malconvoker casting [Evil] spells for Good reasons does not become Evil, you can't look past the RAW of Exalted feats, which explicitly states that "a character who willingly and willfully commits an evil act loses all benefits from his exalted feats." (That's on page 39, for the record.) Yes, you can recover them with Atonement, but how many times do you do that before it doesn't work anymore?

Let's discuss another page on BoED, page 9, which asks and answers the question, "Can the ends justify the means?" It's been cited multiple times in this thread already, but bears repeating, because it's quite on point.
In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good result it may achieve. A paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood. Any exalted character risks losing exalted feats or other benefits of celestial favor if he commits any act of evil for any reason. Whether or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly cannot make evil means any less evil.

*SNIP*

Good ends might sometimes demand evil means. The means remain evil, however, and so characters who are serious about their good alignment and exalted status cannot resort to them, no matter how great the need.

So, no. The Malconvoker, though his class features enable him to cast [Evil] spells without restriction, may have the best possible reasons for committing Evil acts by summoning (Evil) creatures. But per the rules in BoED, an Exalted character "cannot resort to" evil means, "no matter how great the need."

That is what Exalted means. Exalted means a total lack of moral ambiguity. Evil is Evil is Evil, and no Exalted character will ever willfully permit themselves to commit it, at least never more than once. That's why these feats are so significant - not for the power they bring, but the sacrifice that they represent. The standard to which an Exalted character is held.

Again, can a DM rule differently? Of course. But the basic premise of the Malconvoker is "I will use Evil's tools against it." And the basic premise of Exalted is "I don't need Evil to succeed. I would never." Which does seem rather mutually exclusive, to my eye.

[Jowgen]

-high quality argument, reasoned out perfectly as expected-

I see, so your argument RAW-wise is that the casting of an [Evil] remains an Evil act in this case, because the exception only explicitly covers casting prohibitions and alignment changes resulting; i.e. not changing the quality of the act but just nullifying some of the ramifications. So that part boils down as to whether one would define the "do an Evil and you loose these feats" as something that "forbids" the casting, which I originally did but you do make a compelling case... currently undecided.

Now fluff wise your line of reasoning does make perfect sense. Exalted is a higher standard, and an exalted character shouldn't want to use Fiends to do their bidding. I maintain that some celestial would still be willing to consider Malconvoking acceptably Exalted (because hey, Good outsiders deserve some character diversity too :smalltongue: ), but yes it does seem unlikely such a rare Celestial would coincide with a malconvoker who wanted to be Exalted despite their vocation. I'd file that under astronomically rare exception.

What I am still on the fence about is the scenario where an already exalted Conjurer eventually arrives at the decision to become a Malconvoker, with the most exalted mindset and reason. If you're correct about the [Evil] spells still being Evil acts, then they'll loose their status with the first Conjuration. But if the Exalted code of stipulations is defined as a restrictions that forbids that casting, then it should get ignored.

I think this can be resolved with the simple question of: do all Malconvokers go to Hell? As DarkSoul points out, [Evil] casting is one of the Pact Primeval defined corrupt acts that damn you to Baator, regardless of alignment at death (unlawfullness not withstanding). If the Malconvoker's unrestricted casting doesn't negate that, then the act indeed remains Evil and Exalted feats are indeed a no go.

[hamishspence]

As an aside, if the rules from Tyrants of the Nine Hells are in use, a lawful malconvoker who casts 9 evil summons without atoning is automatically consigned to Baator upon death. Might be something to keep in mind when playing one.

The Hellbred template can be applied instead, if they are genuinely repentant. But the whole point of Malconvokers seems to be that they think what they do is necessary - repentance doesn't really go with that.

[Zanos]

Opinions differ, even in-universe.
Shouldn't that be enough on it's own? I mean, if whether or not what you're doing is kosher with the Good deities is a hot topic and some presumably Good churches are executing you, I think that's enough to disqualify you from Exalted, which is supposed to be only the Goodest of the ultra-Good.

I never really liked the Malconvoker fluff much to begin with. The best fiend summoning class is non-Evil because it involves...tricking or forcing the fiends into doing what you want? Isn't that what Evil demon summoners do all the time? Whoever wrote the Malconvoker had absolutely no grasp of 3.5's alignment system.


I think this can be resolved with the simple question of: do all Malconvokers go to Hell? As DarkSoul points out, [Evil] casting is one of the Pact Primeval defined corrupt acts that damn you to Baator, regardless of alignment at death (unlawfullness not withstanding). If the Malconvoker's unrestricted casting doesn't negate that, then the act indeed remains Evil and Exalted feats are indeed a no go.

As ridiculous as corruption/obeisance points are, Malconvoker's don't negate them specifically, so I think they would go to hell.

[Troacctid]

On the other hand, if the answer is so simple, why would there be an in-universe debate at all? It seems like it would be pretty easy to settle for any shmuck with a divination spell, or a phylactery of faithfulness, or enough ranks in Knowledge.

[Zanos]

On the other hand, if the answer is so simple, why would there be an in-universe debate at all? It seems like it would be pretty easy to settle for any shmuck with a divination spell, or a phylactery of faithfulness, or enough ranks in Knowledge.
Well, yeah, because someone tried to inject subjective morality into an objective system, and forgot that any 9th level cleric can just ask their deity directly.

But the listed debate is about whether or not it's Good, not whether or not it's Exalted.

[Aimeryan]

So what you are saying is that the RAW here is that a cleric has to ask their deity for a ruling. Sorted.

[DarkSoul]

So what you are saying is that the RAW here is that a cleric has to ask their deity for a ruling. Sorted.No. The RAW here is that:



Casting an [Evil] spell is an objectively evil act, according to the Book of Vile Darkness, pages 7-8.

A character who willingly and willfully commits an evil act loses all benefits from all his exalted feats. She regains these benefits if she atones for her violations (see Sin and Atonement in Chapter 1).


So a VoP Malconvoker is basically completely screwed because every time they conjure a fiend, they lose VoP and all the other exalted feats they have until they atone, which is likely difficult in the middle of negotiating with a fiend to not break loose and eat their soul, along with those of their friends, family, and hometown.

If the DM says it's alright, great, but it's a house rule. Having exalted feats on a malconvoker would be a crippling drawback and not worth the hassle, in my opinion.

[Psyren]

Yes, you can recover them with Atonement, but how many times do you do that before it doesn't work anymore?

Agreed, and adding to this: Atonement doesn't even work unless you "are truly repentant and desirous of setting right your misdeeds." If your intent is to go right back to doing the thing you needed to atone from in the first place, the spell won't work, period.



What I am still on the fence about is the scenario where an already exalted Conjurer eventually arrives at the decision to become a Malconvoker, with the most exalted mindset and reason.

You can become a Malconvoker just fine. The moment you do malconvokery fiend conjuring though is the moment you cross the line.

[Aimeryan]

No. The RAW here is that:



Casting an [Evil] spell is an objectively evil act, according to the Book of Vile Darkness, pages 7-8.



So a VoP Malconvoker is basically completely screwed because every time they conjure a fiend, they lose VoP and all the other exalted feats they have until they atone, which is likely difficult in the middle of negotiating with a fiend to not break loose and eat their soul, along with those of their friends, family, and hometown.

If the DM says it's alright, great, but it's a house rule. Having exalted feats on a malconvoker would be a crippling drawback and not worth the hassle, in my opinion.

The point I was making is that whether or not it is considered Evil, given that the summonings do not make the Malconvoker Evil, would be up to the Deity granting the Exalted status.

Either the Deity would still see it as Evil and the Malconvoker is just being protected from the change alignment consequence, or the Deity would not see it as Evil because the Malconvoker isn't changing alignment. It wouldn't matter if some Cleric on the ground considered it Evil or not, only the Deity.

[Obviously the Deity in this case is basically the DM, but that is besides the point]

[Rebel7284]

I am still curious what would happen with Consecrate Spell feat. I can see a DM ruling that the good and evil descriptors would cancel each other out, thus making it a neutral act. Probably a houserule unless someone here knows otherwise.

[Jowgen]

The point I was making is that whether or not it is considered Evil, given that the summonings do not make the Malconvoker Evil, would be up to the Deity granting the Exalted status.

Either the Deity would still see it as Evil and the Malconvoker is just being protected from the change alignment consequence, or the Deity would not see it as Evil because the Malconvoker isn't changing alignment. It wouldn't matter if some Cleric on the ground considered it Evil or not, only the Deity.

[Obviously the Deity in this case is basically the DM, but that is besides the point]

While deities (and Celstials) are the ones who grant the feats (and thus Exalted status), they are not likely to be the arbitrators of whether the casting remains evil despite not affecting alignment. It's a universal law that certain actions have intrinsic moral natures, and the deities get no say in that (i.e. Pelor can't go around murdering orphans and just pardon himself). Certainly not run of the mill celestials.

If any single thing were to dictate the rules for this in blood and white, it would be one of the three copies of the Pact Primeval, which is bound to clearly define what is considered Evil/Lawful on a cosmic scale and list all possible loopholes and exceptions (like Hellbred's, Harvester Devils' special persmissions, etc.). It could have a clause specifying that the defined evil acts remain evil regardless of whether they affect alignment, or whether the alignment-affecting mechanics are intrinsically bound to the condemnation. The Catalogues of Enlightenment Library on Mechanus, as well as the Rilmani and Lady of Pain library would probably also have a reliable answer.

Rule-wise, I maintain that the toss up is whether being exalted "forbids" the [Evil] casting (in which case that would get ignored), or whether it doesn't forbid but simply retaliates with the shut-down. I can see good arguments on both sides tbh. Personally... jeez, I'm not even sure how I'd rule.

[Doctor Awkward]

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.

I don't see anything in there about for the purposes of continuing to meet the requirements of Exalted feats.

That class features seems pretty specific about what it does and what it permits.

[Aimeryan]

I don't see anything in there about for the purposes of continuing to meet the requirements of Exalted feats.

That class features seems pretty specific about what it does and what it permits.

I think this is a bit like the duck-rabbit thing; you can't see what people are saying until you see it. I'll try a different tact.

We have a formula like this:
A + B = C

In this A = Evil Spell, while C = Malconvoker not being Evil. What about B? Well B is the mechanic at hand that is being debated about. I see at least three ways B could be presented that could work:


B = Spell no longer Evil
B = Protection from Evil influence
B = Equivalent amount of Good added to cancel out Evil


If 3 then the Exalted feat is lost, no questions asked. If 2 then the Exalted feat is almost certainly lost, although I can see a little bit of wiggle room. If 1 then the Exalted feat shouldn't be lost because no Evil has been done.

I hope that helps.

[RoboEmperor]

I think this is a bit like the duck-rabbit thing; you can't see what people are saying until you see it. I'll try a different tact.

We have a formula like this:
A + B = C

In this A = Evil Spell, while C = Malconvoker not being Evil. What about B? Well B is the mechanic at hand that is being debated about. I see at least three ways B could be presented that could work:


B = Spell no longer Evil
B = Protection from Evil influence
B = Equivalent amount of Good added to cancel out Evil


If 3 then the Exalted feat is lost, no questions asked. If 2 then the Exalted feat is almost certainly lost, although I can see a little bit of wiggle room. If 1 then the Exalted feat shouldn't be lost because no Evil has been done.

I hope that helps.

I don't think there's any question that it's NOT 1.

Lets you cast evil spells
Doesn't threaten to change alignment
Nothing about making the spell no longer evil.
Or noting about adding good to cancel out evil.

So it's 2. definitely

[Doctor Awkward]

I think this is a bit like the duck-rabbit thing; you can't see what people are saying until you see it. I'll try a different tact.

We have a formula like this:
A + B = C

In this A = Evil Spell, while C = Malconvoker not being Evil. What about B? Well B is the mechanic at hand that is being debated about. I see at least three ways B could be presented that could work:


B = Spell no longer Evil
B = Protection from Evil influence
B = Equivalent amount of Good added to cancel out Evil


If 3 then the Exalted feat is lost, no questions asked. If 2 then the Exalted feat is almost certainly lost, although I can see a little bit of wiggle room. If 1 then the Exalted feat shouldn't be lost because no Evil has been done.

I hope that helps.


The feature doesn't stop the casting of an evil spell from being an evil act. It just protects your alignment from repeated use.
Exalted feats are quite clear: a character who willingly commits an evil act loses his exalted feats.

[Aimeryan]

I don't think there's any question that it's NOT 1.

Lets you cast evil spells
Doesn't threaten to change alignment
Nothing about making the spell no longer evil.
Or noting about adding good to cancel out evil.

So it's 2. definitely


The feature doesn't stop the casting of an evil spell from being an evil act. It just protects your alignment from repeated use.
Exalted feats are quite clear: a character who willingly commits an evil act loses his exalted feats.

I disagree that it is so clear that it is not 1. The text only states the result, not the mechanic. I'm not saying I think it is 1., just that I do not think it is so easily discounted. *shrug*

[Jowgen]

The feature doesn't stop the casting of an evil spell from being an evil act. It just protects your alignment from repeated use.
Exalted feats are quite clear: a character who willingly commits an evil act loses his exalted feats.

It's not just alignment change protection though, it also lets you "ignore any restrictions that forbid you from casting spells of certain alignments."

How does one reason that Exalted feats don't restrict/forbid you from casting evil spells (i.e. a clearly defined evil act)?

[Psyren]

I disagree that it is so clear that it is not 1. The text only states the result, not the mechanic. I'm not saying I think it is 1., just that I do not think it is so easily discounted. *shrug*

I discount it, and readily so.


It's not just alignment change protection though, it also lets you "ignore any restrictions that forbid you from casting spells of certain alignments."

How does one reason that Exalted feats don't restrict/forbid you from casting evil spells (i.e. a clearly defined evil act)?

That's easy, they don't forbid you at all. The spell goes off without a hitch, and then your exalted feats stop working.

Compare that to a good cleric trying to cast Unholy Blight, and failing to do so - that is a prohibition.

[Jowgen]

That's easy, they don't forbid you at all. The spell goes off without a hitch, and then your exalted feats stop working.

Compare that to a good cleric trying to cast Unholy Blight, and failing to do so - that is a prohibition.

Ah... semantics and definitions, the best part of any D&D rules discussion. :smallwink:

I would argue that Cleric casting is a bad example because they simply don't get the ability to cast those spells. The responsible divine power doesn't prohibit or forbid them from casting those spells, it simply does not grant them in the first place. It's like saying a standard human is prohibited to Fly. Now if the cleric gets access to evil spells elsewhere, then the casting of that spell will be an evil act and result in the loss of stuff.

Also, I think at this point it's worth noting that the Sin and Atonement section of BoED (which the Exalted feat section refers you to directly), talks about Good Clerics, Paladins and people with Exalted feats in the same breath without making and distinctions regarding the T&C of Evil act restrictions. The RAI seems to very much treat them as interchangeable there.

[Psyren]

I would argue that Cleric casting is a bad example because they simply don't get the ability to cast those spells. The responsible divine power doesn't prohibit or forbid them from casting those spells, it simply does not grant them in the first place. It's like saying a standard human is prohibited to Fly.

Unholy Blight was indeed a bad example because it's a domain spell, so replace it with a general aligned spell like Blasphemy, Unholy Aura, Protection From Good etc. and the point remains unchanged. The rule is that they cannot cast such spells - not that they don't get them at all, so your analogy above doesn't work.



Also, I think at this point it's worth noting that the Sin and Atonement section of BoED (which the Exalted feat section refers you to directly), talks about Good Clerics, Paladins and people with Exalted feats in the same breath without making and distinctions regarding the T&C of Evil act restrictions. The RAI seems to very much treat them as interchangeable there.

That section says "might" and is referring to the potential repercussions that can come to those characters who choose a lesser of two evils. In that respect, yes, the same potential consequences apply to all three groups. That doesn't make them equal in every other respect.

[Lapak]

Again, can a DM rule differently? Of course. But the basic premise of the Malconvoker is "I will use Evil's tools against it." And the basic premise of Exalted is "I don't need Evil to succeed. I would never." Which does seem rather mutually exclusive, to my eye.
This is the beginning and the end of the argument for me. I’m all in favor of fiddling with RAW or being generous in its interpretation when it runs up against a reasonable character idea or the spirit of the game, but this feels like trying to find a way to justify serving foie gras at a vegan food festival - even if you find a way to make it fit within the rules as provided, you’re missing the point.

[Doctor Awkward]

It's not just alignment change protection though, it also lets you "ignore any restrictions that forbid you from casting spells of certain alignments."

For starters, it does nothing of the sort.

The text is "For the purpose only of casting conjuration spells...".
That is the only context in which that piece of rules text matters.

Secondly, nothing about Exalted feats prohibits you from performing evil acts. No spells are taken off your list for gaining an Exalted feat, and nothing is ever denied to you. You are given one rule, and one rule only:

A character who willingly and willfully
commits an evil act loses all benefits from
all his exalted feats.

The only thing a Malconvoker is allowed to ignore is the change in alignment from repeated acts of evil. By that text alone they are implicitly still evil acts.
And once you willingly commit one you lose your Exalted feats.


Also, I think at this point it's worth noting that the Sin and Atonement section of BoED (which the Exalted feat section refers you to directly), talks about Good Clerics, Paladins and people with Exalted feats in the same breath without making and distinctions regarding the T&C of Evil act restrictions. The RAI seems to very much treat them as interchangeable there.

Since you are the one who brought that section up:


A character who has committed
an evil act cannot simply obtain an atonement spell and
carry on as if nothing had happened. She must first make
amends for her actions, at least trying to repair any damage she
caused and offering sincere apologies to those who might still
hold resentment against her. She must demonstrate a willingness
to try harder in the future to avoid such actions, a real commitment
to avoiding evil at all costs.

Malconvokers don't even qualify for atonement, since their class features explicitly state they will continue to perform acts of evil.

[Jowgen]

Hmmm... I am still inclined to consider the casting of an evil conjuration spell to be an act that you're restricted from performing (and thus get to ignore the restriction), but it is a good point that one is still performing it willingly.

Even if the act doesn't ping as Evil and doesn't affect alignment, one is still choosing to commit it wilfully. For a cleric or paladin with a similar shtick (e.g. Hellbred) that distinction wouldn't matter, but it is entirely plausible that for an Exalted character the intent does in-fact matter. They may know that doing this won't count as an Evil act, but they are performing it with the knowledge that it is still an Evil act for anyone else (specific technicalities be damned). I'd find it hard to argue that the Exalted standard isn't at least high enough to make that matter.

The only way around that I could see is an Exalted Character who gets affected by a compulsion and then forced to go into Malconvoker and take advantage of their Unrestricted Summoning to keep their exalted feats. But if feel that scenario stretches the hypotheticals even more than the rogue celestial who'd give someone who's already a malconvoker an exalted feat. Not really worth going into.

Side-note, did we ever settle the question on Malconvokers going to Hell?

[Aimeryan]

I discount it, and readily so.

Alright, thanks for sharing that with us? :amused:


Side-note, did we ever settle the question on Malconvokers going to Hell?

Nope, because the mechanics of Malconvoker are not explicit, only the result (and then only in regards to change alignment). If you deem that the act is not Evil anymore then no Hell. If you deem the act is still evil, you might still be fine because the protection that protects against your alignment changing might also protect against going to Hell for those acts - who knows?

This seems like a "decide for yourself how this works" sort of deal, where the one deciding is the DM.

[Psyren]

Alright, thanks for sharing that with us? :amused:

You're welcome!


Hmmm... I am still inclined to consider the casting of an evil conjuration spell to be an act that you're restricted from performing (and thus get to ignore the restriction), but it is a good point that one is still performing it willingly.

You're contradicting yourself here - are you able to perform it or not? If you are, how are you being restricted from performing it?

I think you're conflating "restricted from doing it" with "restricted from doing it without consequences" - but the text does not say the latter. Nothing is stopping the malconvoker from actually using their powers, there may just be an undesirable outcome when they do.

[DarkSoul]

Side-note, did we ever settle the question on Malconvokers going to Hell?According to FC2 if a spellcaster (not just a malconvoker) is lawfully-aligned and casts an [evil] spell nine or more times, then dies before atoning for the casts their soul is destined for the Hells. Non-lawful casters have nothing to worry about in that respect.

[Jowgen]

You're contradicting yourself here - are you able to perform it or not? If you are, how are you being restricted from performing it?

I think you're conflating "restricted from doing it" with "restricted from doing it without consequences" - but the text does not say the latter. Nothing is stopping the malconvoker from actually using their powers, there may just be an undesirable outcome when they do.

In that one can be restricted (i.e. limited in extent, number, scope, or action) in the sense of being rendered incapable, as well as restricted as in not being permitted despite it being possible. As it says "forbids" rather than "prevents", I think the latter applies; which makes it the same as how a Paladin code of conduct restricts them from performing actions that they are still capable of performing. Plus it does specify "any kind of restriction", so even with your parsing there is an argument for "restricted from doing it without consequences" being a restriction.

Still conceding that it shouldn't work due to the wilfulness clause in the context of Exalted standards, just arguing the inconsequential technicality.

[Thurbane]

The RAW of it leans towards "No", but I would ask the DM: I personally think it would be fairly reasonable to allow it.

[NecroDancer]

I'd rule that it depends on how the gods view Malconvokers.

A super strict LG god may still think the Malconvoker isn't worthy of the feat but a CG god would probably LOVE the idea that evil was being tricked to fight evil.

Maybe a NG god may allow the Malconvoker to use an exalted feat as a "test run" to see if the Malconvoker can be trusted to be good, or perhaps to try to prove that even a fiend summoner's soul can be saved.

[Deadline]

I'd rule that it depends on how the gods view Malconvokers.

A super strict LG god may still think the Malconvoker isn't worthy of the feat but a CG god would probably LOVE the idea that evil was being tricked to fight evil.

Maybe a NG god may allow the Malconvoker to use an exalted feat as a "test run" to see if the Malconvoker can be trusted to be good, or perhaps to try to prove that even a fiend summoner's soul can be saved.

Olidammara would probably find the antics of a Malconvoker downright hilarious.

[NecroDancer]

An interesting "refluff" of the Malconvoker is losely based of Ragman from DC's Shadowpact.

By summoning fiends to fight evil you give them the chance to try to redeem themselves and escape to heaven.

[Psyren]

Olidammara would probably find the antics of a Malconvoker downright hilarious.

Oh absolutely, and they would be CG. Not all of his followers have to be Exalted after all.

Though it's worth pointing out that we do have another canon example of one of his followers being a touch too clever and screwing themselves over in the process (Andromalius) - so it's not like "Olidammara enjoys the joke" is any guarantee of your metaphysical safety.


An interesting "refluff" of the Malconvoker is losely based of Ragman from DC's Shadowpact.

By summoning fiends to fight evil you give them the chance to try to redeem themselves and escape to heaven.

Aren't you tricking them though? The fiends think they are, and fully intend to be, still committing atrocities.

At a bare minimum, they think they are corrupting you, and have no interest in redemption themselves.