thrallherd PrC.

[krupintupple]

hey all,

browsing through the srd20.org and noticed the thrallherd and for whatever reason, i simply cannot believe that it doesn't have "Alignment: non-good" as a requirement. am i alone in this feeling? would it be wrong for me to tack that on, as i feel that no truly 'good' character would be alright so totally subsuming another's free will.

your thoughts?

 

[Starbuck_II]

hey all,

browsing through the srd20.org and noticed the thrallherd and for whatever reason, i simply cannot believe that it doesn't have "Alignment: non-good" as a requirement. am i alone in this feeling? would it be wrong for me to tack that on, as i feel that no truly 'good' character would be alright so totally subsuming another's free will.

your thoughts?

I disagree. And here is why:
The Thrallherd doesn't have to know he is doing it. Every watch the life of Brian (Monty Python)?
They follow him whether he wishes it or not. It isn't like he goes out and say "you!"
Some people just feel the call to serve. Well, maybe he chooses the Cohort, but same as leadership there.

 

[krupintupple]

perhaps you are right, but that's just applying a variant form of fluff to the mechanics of the class.

from the srd, emphasis mine:

Those who answer a thrallherd’s call are not referred to as cohorts and followers, but rather as thralls and believers, respectively. They do not appear because they admire the character and want to serve her, but because a hidden psychic resonance connects the thrallherd and her servants.

while it could be argued that the followers (believers) follow her for a sense of duty, this effectively negates that belief. i realize i could just remove this snippet and replace it with what you mentioned, but as written, it very much appears that they are subservient and serve against their free will.

 

[irdeggman]

perhaps you are right, but that's just applying a variant form of fluff to the mechanics of the class.

from the srd, emphasis mine:


while it could be argued that the followers (believers) follow her for a sense of duty, this effectively negates that belief. i realize i could just remove this snippet and replace it with what you mentioned, but as written, it very much appears that they are subservient and serve against their free will.

Right but it doesn't say that the thrallherd is deliberately controlling them only that there is a psychic force at work which forces them to follow - it could be unconscious (from the thrallherd) which fully falls within the "fluff" example given.

Now using your logic that controlling someone against their will is an evil act would likewise make using Charm spells (which effectively convince the affected that the caster is a true friend whether true or not) an evil act too.

 

[krupintupple]

Now using your logic that controlling someone against their will is an evil act would likewise make using Charm spells (which effectively convince the affected that the caster is a true friend whether true or not) an evil act too.

i would disagree with this, because a charm on a single creature is a temporary measure at best, unless taken further. a thrallherd is basically having some form of command over people against their will (they do not serve willingly), and, psychic resonance or not, they are not of their own volition.

note i also never said it was an evil act, just not a particularly good act.

i'd be a fool to say that all applications of any form of charming are evil, as i feel that the alignment reprocussions depend entirely upon what is done with someone while under the charm; however, if an enchanter were to keep someone charmed for the rest of their life against their will, for his own benefit, whether benign or not, i'd still think that would qualify as non-good.

 

[Creeping Death]

i would disagree with this, because a charm on a single creature is a temporary measure at best

So subverting or dominating one is evil if for a long duration but good if only for a short duration? Those terms are too subjective. Someone with ADD would think a minute is a long duration, someone else such as a dragon would think that a decade is a short duration.

, unless taken further. a thrallherd is basically having some form of command over people against their will (they do not serve willingly), and, psychic resonance or not, they are not of their own volition.

note i also never said it was an evil act, just not a particularly good act.

I would say it is more like a case of the munchies. The potato chips aren't evil and they aren't of their own free will compelling or forcing me to eat, yet there is some flavorful resonance calling to me where I feel the urge and in most cases am unable to resist such an urge to eat.

i'd be a fool to say that all applications of any form of charming are evil, as i feel that the alignment reprocussions depend entirely upon what is done with someone while under the charm;

"You were sent to destroy the Sith, not join them. Anakin, they are evil."
"From where I am, it is the Jedi who are evil." Again, you are being too subjective. In order for good to be good, it must abide by its own rules; domination, wether to accomplish a good task or an evil task is still domination. If domination is considered evil then it is evil whether used for 1 round or is permanent, whether to rescue the princess or kill her.

I am in the camp that the thrallherd is not evil and does not need alignment restrictions. For me, it is on a subconcious level, the PC could dismiss all the NPCs and new ones would show up, the PC has no choice in this. Just like the 6 foot 6 inch guy is always asked if he plays basketball. It's not like he walks around with one, people just assume based on his height. The PC can be the same way, people come to follow him, not because he asked them to, but because these people heard the call. They for some internal reason, felt it was the right thing to do.

Love the Life of Brian analogy earlier in the thread, made me spray coke on the keyboard. Love that movie.

 

[krupintupple]

ugh...forum ate my reply...

but at any rate, keep in mind that i never used the word evil. in my belief, a thrallherd is not evil, but he's certainly not good.

ironically, your potato chip analogy works to my argument perfectly, as you compared his flock to mere foodstuffs, inanimate, unthinking objects to be manipulated as the thrallherd sees fit. while this power may be abused and turned toward evil ends, i'd think this is not by itself, an evil act. it would however, probably also not be a good one.

i also don't buy into the false dichotomy of 'us or them', 'black or white', 'jedi or sith' that george lucas and his jedi seem to: i fully believe that charm person and dominate person are themselves not inherently evil, only their uses should dictate the alignment-based reprocussions of the spell.

i think i should explain my reasonings a little better, as i don't want to come off uninformed:

1) using charm person to cause a hostile warrior to flee combat is acceptable.

2) using charm person to cause a hostile warrior to dance on hot coals for your enjoyment is probably not acceptable.

3) using dominate person to force a villian's henchman to disrupt the villan's ritual sacrifice of an innocent, while fully removing his freedoms and free will, is acceptable

4) using dominate person to force someone who does not know you into being your friend for the rest of their waking lives, against their conscious desires and free will - while not evil - is probably not good thing either.

i could even imagine someone of any of the good persuasions to get quite annoyed with this development and petition - one way or another - for their liberation.

 

[Creeping Death]

Actually it is the other way around. The thrallherd is the bag of potato chips. Not the minions, otherwise the bag of potato chips would be compelled to eat me. In that analogy I was the minion on my way to devour the potato chips; just like minions on their way to serve the thrallherd. The potato chips did nothing, just like the thrallherd does nothing.

If you define theft as evil, wrong, then no matter the reason, it is an evil act. Same with domination. If you define it with intent, then the thrallherd getting followers is not good or evil until he does something with those followers. So again, putting an alignment restriction on the thrallherd does not make sense.

 

[krupintupple]

Same with domination. If you define it with intent, then the thrallherd getting followers is not good or evil until he does something with those followers.

i would define the thrallherd's mental calling to be non-good, as the intent may not be good or evil, but the act of sublimating people would likely be antithesis to any good character.

for instance, putting someone in a cage for the rest of their life and claiming that you've done neither good nor evil until you poison them (evil), or teach them to create beautiful paintings (good) still ignores the overarching fact that you've put them in a cage for the rest of their life, which for my purposes, i argue is non-good.

in a related note, if someone could explain why the Mindbender of complete arcane fame, should not have the "non-good" requirement, maybe that would help me understand why the Thrallherd should remain alignment-free. Although not the same, they're closely related and both involve the long-term domination of others, except that Mindbender has 'non-good' while thrallherd does not.

 

[Angrydad]

First off, I've had one Thrallherd in my campaign ever. He was definitely NOT good. I don't know if I'd define him as outright evil, but definitely selfish. I'd probably agree with the OP on the alignment requirement, since a player CHOOSES to become a Thrallherd. Yes, they can role play it away as some sort of unconscious thing, but I think the idea of choosing to dominate others is a fairly non-good sort of thing to do. Though now that I think about it a bit more, the unconscious calling could be a decent justification for a good thrallherd, but it mostly strikes me as a non-good PrC.