Malconvokers and the afterlife

[EdRed]

I've always been fond of the Malconvoker PrC and it's flavour of strongarming/cheating evil outsiders into being helpful. I noticed that it seems to come with a somewhat hidden catch, which might very well be a feature or simply wasn't considered.

One of the class features is the ability to ignore alignment restrictions for conjuration spells while also being able to ignore the impact of casting [Evil] spells on your alignment.
However, this doesn't seem to address the fact that casting [Evil] spells is a corrupt act and, according to Fiendish Codex II, would eventually condemn a Lawful Good Malconvoker to an afterlife in Baator.

Both from a crunch and a fluff perspective, how would you rule on this?

Do Malconvokers in your game ultimately pay the price for playing with fire throughout their career or does their class feature extend to protecting them from accumulating corrupt acts?

[Buufreak]

Eh. Atonement exists for a reason.

[Raishoiken]

I've always been fond of the Malconvoker PrC and it's flavour of strongarming/cheating evil outsiders into being helpful. I noticed that it seems to come with a somewhat hidden catch, which might very well be a feature or simply wasn't considered.

One of the class features is the ability to ignore alignment restrictions for conjuration spells while also being able to ignore the impact of casting [Evil] spells on your alignment.
However, this doesn't seem to address the fact that casting [Evil] spells is a corrupt act and, according to Fiendish Codex II, would eventually condemn a Lawful Good Malconvoker to an afterlife in Baator.

Both from a crunch and a fluff perspective, how would you rule on this?

Do Malconvokers in your game ultimately pay the price for playing with fire throughout their career or does their class feature extend to protecting them from accumulating corrupt acts?


Personally, it would depend on what the metaphysical laws are in the particular game i was running, and what ramifications those laws would have on both "everyday" life and the grander picture. Should a paladin who was raised as an assassin and turns to good and consistently saves the world still go to hell because his soul is permanently tainted, similar to Vegeta in dragonball z (who is arguably not fully saved til the very end of the saga but i digress)? If so, and this is information semi-commonly known among the clergy and public, it creates yet another obstacle for those seeking atonement for their deeds. Why turn to good (or neutral while acting good for recompense's sake) if you're still going to be tortured eternally for it?


Although and if so:


Eh. Atonement exists for a reason.


Also, Buufreak your Boo(uu) pic is fantastic

[Tiktakkat]

My ruling on it would be that the rules in FCII are overblown and excessive and do not apply in my games.

[Grey Guard]

My ruling on it would be that the rules in FCII are overblown and excessive and do not apply in my games.

Well, any DM would be in their power to make that ruling.

If you're intent on using the Corrupt and Obeisance rules in the FCII, though, that's not as helpful.

Honestly, this sounds like the exact sort of scenario that the book has thought of: Is there a possible dispute on Baator's hold on your soul? Then tell the Barbazu about to grab you when you show up on the Shores of Despond that you want to dispute their claim, and you get to go to court to hash this out. The judge is a Pit Fiend, but will rule lawfully. You can have either an Erinyes or Falxugon be your advocate/representative.

Sounds like a fun scene to play out.

[magic9mushroom]

If you're intent on using the Corrupt and Obeisance rules in the FCII, though, that's not as helpful.

The problem is that those rules are in direct conflict with the way afterlives are supposed to work in D&D and the way they're assumed to work in literally every other sourcebook (including Complete Divine, which goes into detail). The obeisance score is particularly ridiculous, because the demons certainly haven't made any agreement allowing Asmodeus to take their rightful Chaotic Evil souls (and a substantial majority of them, at that, because even an orc horde has a degree of hierarchy sufficient to regularly hit those acts). It's literally just a mechanism allowing the DM to screw with PCs by saying "lol, you go to hell even if you're LG and I didn't make you change that".

This isn't the only time FCII directly contradicts established rules, either.



In the case of Malconvokers, though, there's a reasonable possibility that the Vital Pact was written by fiends and without resorting to FCII you could still justifiably say "lol you walked into a fiend trap, moron".

[el minster]

it is the DMs decision but Malconvokers seem to be an exception to the rule.

[Grey Guard]

The problem is that those rules are in direct conflict with the way afterlives are supposed to work in D&D and the way they're assumed to work in literally every other sourcebook (including Complete Divine, which goes into detail). The obeisance score is particularly ridiculous, because the demons certainly haven't made any agreement allowing Asmodeus to take their rightful Chaotic Evil souls (and a substantial majority of them, at that, because even an orc horde has a degree of hierarchy sufficient to regularly hit those acts). It's literally just a mechanism allowing the DM to screw with PCs by saying "lol, you go to hell even if you're LG and I didn't make you change that".

This isn't the only time FCII directly contradicts established rules, either.



In the case of Malconvokers, though, there's a reasonable possibility that the Vital Pact was written by fiends and without resorting to FCII you could still justifiably say "lol you walked into a fiend trap, moron".

I doubt the authors of the book wrote it specifically as an adversarial tool for the DM to antagonize the players. It's suitable for a game that features the devils heavily, and you want some rules where Asmodeus has rigged the system so that he can get not only Lawful Evil souls, but souls that fit a criteria of having done lawful and evil things. Which is very on point for flavor for him, and devils in general, really.

Honestly, it's unlikely to affect the players too much at all, given you have to DIE to reap the consequences of those actions. Maybe there could be a quest, when your noble friend dies, and a friendly augur tells you they're in torment in the Hells, and the party has to Ocean's 11 their soul.

Specifically for Malconvokers, like I said, this is the exact sort of thing where the infernal court gets to have a case. Or, if you prefer to not use FCII rules, just toss it all out. Malconvoker is fine, because it was all a ruse, and he gets to go to Celestia (or wherever), while flipping Asmodeus off from the Up Escalator.

[Tiktakkat]

I doubt the authors of the book wrote it specifically as an adversarial tool for the DM to antagonize the players. It's suitable for a game that features the devils heavily, and you want some rules where Asmodeus has rigged the system so that he can get not only Lawful Evil souls, but souls that fit a criteria of having done lawful and evil things. Which is very on point for flavor for him, and devils in general, really.

First, what magic9mushroom said about those rules being in conflict with other rules. He beat me to it.

At which point I do not doubt that the authors wrote it specifically as an adversarial tool for the DM. Not explicitly to antagonize the players, but to deliberately cut off access to material they just do not want the players to have access to, even though the bad guys get free access to all such materials. As to how that constitutes poor balancing is an extended discussion of its own.

Then we get to what you acknowledge about it being suited for a game that features devils heavily. Which pretty much means it is not suited for games that do not, which speaks rather heavily against it being suitable as a general rule. That you need to solicit advice on how to employ it with the malconvoker demonstrates that incompatibility.

As for actually affecting the players, again, merely by asking about it affects a malconvoker, or perhaps say a grey guard, against directly demonstrates that it has a significant affect. That you would extend it to setting up a quest to rescue a soul lost because of it goes even further to demonstrate what magic9mushroom said regarding the entire subsystem being an excuse for a DM to set up a player with a LG PC for failure.

And while the ensuing fiendish trial may seem like a good idea to you, it may not feel that way to the players, so if you really are determined to use that subsystem in such a manner, the best thing to do is make sure the players are fully aware of it, how it works, and how you intend to use it against them, so they can choose whether or not to blithely walk into it. If they do not, be prepared to accept that, and do not try and railroad them into it. Those are ways that the rule becomes overtly antagonistic tool.

[Grey Guard]

First, what magic9mushroom said about those rules being in conflict with other rules. He beat me to it.

At which point I do not doubt that the authors wrote it specifically as an adversarial tool for the DM. Not explicitly to antagonize the players, but to deliberately cut off access to material they just do not want the players to have access to, even though the bad guys get free access to all such materials. As to how that constitutes poor balancing is an extended discussion of its own.

I see the reasoning in that. It's not uncommon to hide options and choices from players behind the "it's bad guy stuff" wall. 3.5 doesn't have too much of this, fortunately.

It doesn't seem like too much is being cut off, except maybe the occasional [Evil] spell, though. At least obviously. We see the issues with something like the Malconvoker.


Then we get to what you acknowledge about it being suited for a game that features devils heavily. Which pretty much means it is not suited for games that do not, which speaks rather heavily against it being suitable as a general rule. That you need to solicit advice on how to employ it with the malconvoker demonstrates that incompatibility.

Emphasis mine. I actually really, very much agree with this. That whole subsystem is not something I would toss haphazardly in all of my games, and would only implement it, myself, in a game where devils and their plots feature prominently. I wouldn't argue that it should be a general rule for most games, and if I came across as implying that, it wasn't my intent. I figured since the OP was asking specifically about these two specific things, that they were being used in his game, and was discussing things from that viewpoint.

When bringing multiple books to the table, with multiple classes, mechanics, and systems coming together, yeah, you can run into things like with the Malconvoker (all about fooling evil outsiders that he's on Team Evil), and his morally ambiguous acts racking up Corruption points. That's where the DM needs to step in and make a ruling, because otherwise, it's going to hurt playing the Malconvoker. You and magic9mushroom are pretty correct about that.


As for actually affecting the players, again, merely by asking about it affects a malconvoker, or perhaps say a grey guard, against directly demonstrates that it has a significant affect. That you would extend it to setting up a quest to rescue a soul lost because of it goes even further to demonstrate what magic9mushroom said regarding the entire subsystem being an excuse for a DM to set up a player with a LG PC for failure.

ISWYDT :smalltongue:. I'm not saying it won't be a significant effect. I guess I'm approaching this as a way to inspire more quests and enhance gameplay, rather than looking at how it could take away from it or make the players miserable. I don't have an adversarial relationship with how my DMs handle our games (not that I'm implying the OP or yourself do!), and so worrying about that isn't second-nature to me anymore.

If the subsystem is in use, and you're concerned it's being used as a weapon against you, as a player, that maybe something that needs to be brought up with the DM outside of the game; and explain how you feel this is making the game less fun for everyone involved.


And while the ensuing fiendish trial may seem like a good idea to you, it may not feel that way to the players, so if you really are determined to use that subsystem in such a manner, the best thing to do is make sure the players are fully aware of it, how it works, and how you intend to use it against them, so they can choose whether or not to blithely walk into it. If they do not, be prepared to accept that, and do not try and railroad them into it. Those are ways that the rule becomes overtly antagonistic tool.

Sounds reasonable to me. Know your players, make a fun game accordingly to everyone's tastes.

[Sereg]

it is the DMs decision but Malconvokers seem to be an exception to the rule.

This. Specific trump's general.

[magic9mushroom]

I doubt the authors of the book wrote it specifically as an adversarial tool for the DM to antagonize the players.

Okay, I'll admit, I probably overstated things there. It does fit a particular kind of evangelical cosmology where everyone who doesn't walk the One True Path is damned. The problem is that that just isn't appropriate for the way 3E Greyhawk is set up (although it's not entirely inappropriate for the Forgotten Realms AIUI).


Honestly, it's unlikely to affect the players too much at all, given you have to DIE to reap the consequences of those actions. Maybe there could be a quest, when your noble friend dies, and a friendly augur tells you they're in torment in the Hells, and the party has to Ocean's 11 their soul.

Die, yes, but high-level PCs have a tendency to do that.


Table 3-2: Encounter Difficulty
10% Easy (EL lower than party level)
20% Easy if handled properly
50% Challenging (EL equals that of party)
15% Very difficult (EL 1-4 higher than party level)
5% Overpowering (EL 5+ higher than party level)

If your proposed CR is appropriate, the PCs should be able to win the encounter with some damage, given reasonable luck. [...] In the case of high-CR monsters (say, 11 or more), an occasional PC death is not out of line with the monster's CR, since parties of that level can usually bring dead characters back to life pretty easily.

I mean, there's nothing directly preventing resurrection from Hell, but there are a number of possible complications.

[Tiktakkat]

I see the reasoning in that. It's not uncommon to hide options and choices from players behind the "it's bad guy stuff" wall. 3.5 doesn't have too much of this, fortunately.

Or perhaps unfortunately. Do recall that the designers went out of their way to build a huge wall between player stuff and bad guy stuff after 3.5.
And as that goes, there was a big wall between them pre-3 that was removed. I have read quite a bit of commentary expressing dissatisfaction with that, making it obvious why the designers wanted to rebuild it.


It doesn't seem like too much is being cut off, except maybe the occasional [Evil] spell, though. At least obviously. We see the issues with something like the Malconvoker.

On the surface, yes, but especially with summoning it means everything a summoned evil creature can do that summoned good and neutrals creature cannot do is cut off. There are lots of collateral effects like that scattered throughout the rules that are easy to miss until you run headlong into the effect later on in character development and play.
While theoretically that works the other way, no rules ever suggests an evil creature is in danger of spontaneously being redeemed whether it wants to be or not if it summons too many good creatures or the like.


ISWYDT :smalltongue:.

It was rather staring me in the face. :D


I don't have an adversarial relationship with how my DMs handle our games (not that I'm implying the OP or yourself do!), and so worrying about that isn't second-nature to me anymore.

I did not think you were. Neither was I, which is why I tried to phrase it as just analyzing author intent. As it goes, I've seen more adversarial intent from writers than from DMs, though I've read enough stories here that I know it exists, to generally expect less-than-the best from said writers.
I give commenters and players the benefit of the doubt, I do not extend that to the rules.


Sounds reasonable to me. Know your players, make a fun game accordingly to everyone's tastes.

Indeed. And I've done it. Each time I have made it quite clear that there would be "consequences" for certain choices, and each time a player has willingly engaged that choice. And so far they have all enjoyed the choice and the consequences.

[magic9mushroom]

Or perhaps unfortunately. Do recall that the designers went out of their way to build a huge wall between player stuff and bad guy stuff after 3.5.
And as that goes, there was a big wall between them pre-3 that was removed. I have read quite a bit of commentary expressing dissatisfaction with that, making it obvious why the designers wanted to rebuild it.

It's certainly true that plenty of RPGs do have such a wall (although D&D 3 is hardly the only one that doesn't), but calling it fortunate or unfortunate is kind of an exercise in myopia. Some people like such a wall because it allows easier balancing without intricate system knowledge. Some people don't like it because it hurts verisimilitude. Thus, the people who like it play RPGs with it and the people who don't like it play RPGs without it. It is good that both exist for the total fun of gamers.

[Psyren]

In-universe, I would say that Malconvokers almost certainly trigger a courtroom scenario. I'd have a deity sit in judgement though rather than the devils themselves - Malconvokers don't actually sell their souls after all. Wee Jas, Kelemvor or Pharasma would be the likely arbiters here.



Die, yes, but high-level PCs have a tendency to do that.

There's a difference between dying and needing to worry about one's final destination though, especially as an adventurer. In most games, the dead party member is probably revived too quickly for it to be an issue. If you want to convey to a PC that they're on a downward trajectory, maybe have them come back with a lingering smell of brimstone or odd aches and pains that they didn't have at the time of their death.



While theoretically that works the other way, no rules ever suggests an evil creature is in danger of spontaneously being redeemed whether it wants to be or not if it summons too many good creatures or the like.

Indeed they're not. BoED 7:

"Good spells don’t have any redemptive influence on those who cast them, for better or worse."

Casting a bunch of [good] spells, including summons, won't spontaneously shift an evildoer's alignment for the better; they need actual good deeds for that.

[Tiktakkat]

It's certainly true that plenty of RPGs do have such a wall (although D&D 3 is hardly the only one that doesn't), but calling it fortunate or unfortunate is kind of an exercise in myopia. Some people like such a wall because it allows easier balancing without intricate system knowledge. Some people don't like it because it hurts verisimilitude. Thus, the people who like it play RPGs with it and the people who don't like it play RPGs without it. It is good that both exist for the total fun of gamers.

I should clarify:
I meant that as a note that the designers rather clearly felt it was unfortunate, as they went out of their way to remove it post-3.5, after it had been hardwired in to 3. (Especially with Savage Species.)

I generally prefer a middle ground where there are some things that just cannot crossover but there are no Villain Plot Immunity Powers shenanigans going on.

Otherwise I agree with you, that kind of absolute view cuts off play style preferences rather than embracing them.

[Saint-Just]

Ok, [Evil] spells are evil acts and [Good] spells are not good acts.

Setting aside [Evil] descriptors on spells which do not harm anybody, and which are harder to use to achieve evil goals than your run-of-the-mill fireball - aren't [Chaotic] chaotic acts and [Lawful] spells lawful acts? If it is so then [Good] spells effects on alignment are espcially glaring.

[RatElemental]

Ok, [Evil] spells are evil acts and [Good] spells are not good acts.

Setting aside [Evil] descriptors on spells which do not harm anybody, and which are harder to use to achieve evil goals than your run-of-the-mill fireball - aren't [Chaotic] chaotic acts and [Lawful] spells lawful acts? If it is so then [Good] spells effects on alignment are espcially glaring.

I think the takeaway here is that aligned spells are kind of silly as a concept and its use probably should have began and ended at keeping clerics of good gods from shooting beams of pure evil and clerics of lawful gods from unleashing waves of pure chaos, and vice versa for clerics of evil and chaotic gods.

[Telonius]

I'm honestly not sure which way I'd rule it. On the one hand, it's kind of a big thing for me that if something is listed as a class feature, it ought to do something that at least roughly matches the description of what the feature says it ought to do. The Unrestricted Conjuration feature says (essentially) you can shoot off a particular set of Evil spells without worrying about how it affects your alignment (read: final destination of your soul in case of death), so in general that's what it ought to be doing.

On the other hand, reading the fluff description of the class (particularly the description of the Vital Pact) just screams out "trap" to me, and it would be a truly amazing opportunity for some "Devil and Daniel Webster" shenanigans. It would take a very specific player, and a whole lot of player/DM trust, to pull it off, though. This wouldn't be something to just do without warning or with anybody who had any chance of being upset by it.

[Psyren]

Ok, [Evil] spells are evil acts and [Good] spells are not good acts.

Setting aside [Evil] descriptors on spells which do not harm anybody, and which are harder to use to achieve evil goals than your run-of-the-mill fireball - aren't [Chaotic] chaotic acts and [Lawful] spells lawful acts? If it is so then [Good] spells effects on alignment are espcially glaring.

Good being harder than Evil shouldn't be surprising, this is a staple idea not just of fantasy but of fiction in general.

Law and Chaos I view as means to an end, not the ends themselves.

[Saint-Just]

Good being harder than Evil shouldn't be surprising, this is a staple idea not just of fantasy but of fiction in general.

Law and Chaos I view as means to an end, not the ends themselves.

Good being harder than Evil is an acceptable idea... the problem is some rules support that sort of view and some treat them as strictly symmetrical.

And Law and Chaos definitely have canonical representations of being goals into themselves. And if we go back into game mechanics somehow Law can have the same effects as Evil ("same" means e.g. shifting alignments) -and Chaos can too - but Good cannot. Good is harder than Law is not a very interesting or universal proposition.

[Psyren]

Good being harder than Evil is an acceptable idea... the problem is some rules support that sort of view and some treat them as strictly symmetrical.

I can't think of places where the latter is true but even if there are, the former is far more intrinsic to D&D.


And Law and Chaos definitely have canonical representations of being goals into themselves.

Again, not how I view it. Beings that neutrally value Law or Chaos simply don't care too much about the outcome as long as you're following the appropriate means to get there, which makes them morally neutral.


And if we go back into game mechanics somehow Law can have the same effects as Evil ("same" means e.g. shifting alignments) -and Chaos can too - but Good cannot. Good is harder than Law is not a very interesting or universal proposition.

Your alignment shifting towards Law merely represents that you are more likely to use Lawful means regardless of your ends - whether you care about good outcomes, evil outcomes or neither.

[Particle_Man]

I would rule that the Malconvoker gets a free pass to cast [Evil] Conjuration spells without that making them go to a bad place after they die. That is part of the point of being a Malconvoker.

The "trap" part of the Malconvoker is actually later in the class: The planar binding spells. They look nice, don't they? And hey, you can bind evil fiends and try to get them to do what you want! Wow! Except, oh wait, there is a charisma check involved, and no matter how high your charisma is: "If you roll a 1 on the Charisma check, the creature breaks free of the binding and can escape or attack you." I rule that as a "if you roll a 1 on the die" so there is a 5% chance for the Malconvoker to have an inconvenient afternoon, especially if they pick that day to try to bargain with something at the upper end of the fiend hierarchy. *That* is the dangerous trap part. I mean, the Malconvoker can make contingency plans (like having a lot of buddies around to beat the crap out of the bad guy if necessary) but if it simply teleports away it can cause untold havoc.

And even if everything goes according to plan, there is that other line in the planar binding spells: "the creature might later seek revenge".

I mean, John Constantine might go to heaven, but nobody would say that his life was particularly easy. :smallsmile:

[Bavarian itP]

But that's not a problem of the Malconvoker specifically, but of the Planar Binding spells.

[Particle_Man]

Yeah, but Malconvokers get easier access to that shiny red button to press, because of the Deceitful Bargaining class feature. I mean with that awesome feature, what could possibly go wrong? Might as well use Planar Binding all the time, right? :smallbiggrin:

[sleepyphoenixx]

But that's not a problem of the Malconvoker specifically, but of the Planar Binding spells.

It's a bigger problem for Malconvokers because they get incentives to call evil beings where other good or neutral spellcasters might not.
A good spellcaster calling outsider assistance is probably going to ask for something that a good outsider wouldn't mind doing, so they're unlikely to look for revenge after the fact.
Even if they do you're far more likely to get off with a slap on the wrist and a "don't do it again" or maybe some kind of return service at worst.
In fact good and even neutral called outsiders are unlikely to seek revenge unless you're outright evil or particularly abusive in your negotiations. Assuming you deal in good faith you can expect your agreements to be respected.

The problem with calling fiends is that they're pretty likely to cause you problems even if you treat them fairly.
A devil may uphold the letter of your agreement - assuming it's ironclad - but it's still going to use anything it learns during the task to its advantage (and your probable detriment).
And they're almost certain to seek revenge if you trick or cheat them as Malconvokers do.
I imagine more than one Malconvoker has been tricked down the path to corruption because that's what devils do. Your class features may protect you from the magical consequences of summoning them, but they do nothing against persuasion and lies, which devils specialize in. And Sense Motive is not a class skill.

If you're calling demons all bets are off. They have all the drawbacks of devils in addition to only doing what you can magically force them to do. They'll look for loopholes, try to break whatever bindings you use and any reasonably powerful one will probably come after you for revenge simply for the insult of daring to summon them in the first place even if you didn't trick them.