"Common Sense" approach to rules (RACSD)

[Menteith]

My frustration is my own fault, and I have calmed down some now. I apologize for the outburst, for what it's worth.

I'm sorry too, I've been under stress from finals, and I was being snarky. Either way, water under the bridge?

The name of the spell, the fact that it has the [Darkness] descriptor, the fact that it cancels out [Light] spells, the legacy of the spell itself (it existed in 3.0, in 2E, possibly even in earlier editions) -- all speaks to the intent of the authors, and it is not what you are implying. Everything about it, save for one line, which can be interpreted in more than one way, implies this spell was intended to create darkness, not light. This is why I called you intellectually dishonest: I don't see how anyone can honestly believe what you say you do. Either you dismiss every single fact except that one line as unimportant--with no basis for it--or ... I don't even know. Like I said, I cannot see how your stance is in any way reasonable.

It is not impossible to have a spell that does what you want darkness to do, and it is not wrong in any way -- but it wouldn't be darkness. What you are describing is two separate effects: One which creates darkness (when there is light), and one which creates light (when there is darkness).

I'll use Deathwatch as a similar example. Deathwatch is an [Evil] spell - based on the descriptor, it seems clear that the developers only saw the potential for this spell to be used in an Evil capacity. The spell's actual effect is in no way evil, and the spell actually appears on the Healer's spell list. Deathwatch is fully capable of being used outside of the narrow purview intended by the original authors of the spell.

I feel the same way about Darkness - it may have been intended (although RAI is always sketchy to some degree) to be used solely to reduce the amount of light, but the actual spell can be used in ways that are beyond the intent of the developers - and in interesting ways that aren't harmful to the game. I try to avoid making changes to the game whenever I can avoid it, and in this case, I don't see a problem with Darkness behaving in this way. Which is the fundamental reason I'm opposed to it, I suppose - I feel like this is a change made for the sake of making a change, and reduces the options available by limiting a spell needlessly.

I do see your point, and I understand where you're coming from. And I'll agree that it's quite likely that the writers just didn't think of a situation where Darkness could be used to provide illumination. But I don't think that's a reason to remove the functionality from the spell.

EDIT

Andorax - Yeah, that's correct. A spell's name doesn't have to be a perfect description of its function. It helps of course, but there's already a multitude of things in 3.5 whose effects don't perfectly fit their names.