thrallherd PrC.

[Creeping Death]

The unconscious bit is the part that makes it alignment free. The way that I would explain it is that out of so many people only 1 can become a thrallherd, they do not choose it, they are born with it. Out of so many that can become a thrallherd only the ones that develop their psionic ability have a chance. Of those that have a chance only the ones that meet the prerequisites will become a thrallherd. In game terms some person trains as a psionic and reaches a certain level then increases in power. In meta game terms the player chooses level of thrallherd, in game terms that increase in power was supposed to gain the person another level of psion but instead a thrall with some believers show up.

I played a thrallherd once. Absolutely loved it. I did things to keep my believers safe, treated my thrall like a cohort (gave him a share of the treasure and such) I was mainly in it for the charm and dominate. I made many high and mighty noble brats lick the floors clean for mouthing off to me (I wasn't a noble, and they didn't have strong wills; so it worked out). Wizards summoning elementals were my favorite, elementals with their incredibly low will saves always gave me more allies. Whole new meaning to "I'll rip your arm off and beat you with it".

If you run a campaign with a lot of RP and consequences because of choices, a Thrallherd is great, but both the DM and player have to work together to create the cohorts and followers. Gotta let the PC get what they want without ruining the campaign.

Imagine what happens if several believers were from a nearby city and you just took some key people. What if the King's young son happened to be one of them? What if some of your followers were thugs but you are trying to be a shining example of good? What if some of your believers were wanted for crimes committed or what if they were the sole providers for their families? Really smart enemies that know what the PC is could send a few low level henchmen to act as believers just to keep tabs on you.

I was trying to figure out a way to be both a shaper to create (summon) astral constructs and a thrallherd. My turns in combat would consist of me sitting back while my cohort would act or I act while my cohort did nothing but defend me. (Can't take too much of the spot light, its rude to the other players.) It never worked out.

Still though, it is subconcious, as you have said, it depends on what you do with the followers that determines if you are evil or not.

 

[Creeping Death]

Mindbender's ability to dominate seems more conscious than the Thrallherd's ability to summon thralls and believers.

Compare prerequisites.

Skills
Mindbender: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense motive
Thrallherd : Diplomacy, Knowledge (psionics)

Feats:
Mindbender: none
Thrallherd : Inquisiter - know if someone is lying, spend focus to gain bonus to sense motive.

Powers:
Mindbender: charm person caster level 5th.
Thrallherd : mindlink, manifester level 5th.

All mind link does is allow you to telepathically communicate with someone. You have to pay extra on an unwilling subject, and you can not influence the subject in any way.

Then look at the powers, mindbender gets skill boost to bluff,intimidate, etc etc. Mindbender gets eternal charm and automatically dominate a target of his choice for 24 hours. Thrallherd just gets better at manifesting dominate but does not get this free absolute dominate. Mindbender does eventually get a thrall but not believers. Mindbender chooses his thrall and those subject to eternal charm, while the Thrallherd doesn't really get a choice outside of taking levels in Thrallherd. It is clear from this that mindbender is geared toward non-good while thrallherd is a bit more vague and open, thus allowing good, neutral, or evil characters.

 

[Drowbane]

I've had an exalted (gestalt) Monk | Psion / thrall herd who's thralls and beleivers heralded him as the "Fist of the Cudgel". Yes, his thrall was a cleric of St Cuthbert.
Good times.

Aesthetically, my PC wasn't subverting people to his will (at least, not intentionally)

While the PrC's abilities can be used for EVIL... they're not evil in and of themselves. No more than fireball is.

 

[green slime]

I agree with the OP.

IMC, subverting the will of individuals through various mind control techniques (magical, psionic, or otherwise) is non-good.

 

[irdeggman]

I see something here behind the posts that needs clarifying.

Is good and evil dependent on choice?

Or is it just the way it is (i.e., black and white).

What I mean is being good (or not good) a result of choices made in a PC's behavior or is it merely determined by his actions?

That appears to be the crux of the difference here.

Since the thrallherd's abilities are not a conscious choice.

 

[airwalkrr]

It seems to me that if you distill the OP's argument down to its elemental form, it is a question of whether or not it is ethical to charm/enchant someone. Charms and enchantments are a means to an end, like any other weapon or spell in the game. To make a statement about their inherent morality/immorality would be difficult given that the game's alignment system assumes it is ok to use such means occasionally, even if one is good. Even doing so on a long-term basis is potentially justifiable. Enchanters have had such ability since the game's inception.

 

[krupintupple]

Even doing so on a long-term basis is potentially justifiable.

i would consider the use of a long-term charm or spell to render a harmful or dangerous creature (or creatures) docile to be acceptable. keeping a troll from terrorizing or killing innocents through an extended charm is acceptable, as it would save the lives of many and keep the troll away from the lands of those that it might harm. doing the same to a large group of farmers and craftsmen, against their will, is not a good action, but not explicity an evil one either; it's non-good.

i agree with what green_slime has said, he basically distills my argument.

i also note that people have explained that their character did lead a group of people to a good idea, or that their thrallherd was idolized by his follwers for a good cause or relgious reasons, but keep in mind that those same people were essentially forced ("...they do not appear because they want to serve her...") into believing such things.

if the thrallherd specifically attracted only thralls and believers who posed a danger to the larger community, then the class might be justified for a good aligned person - he'd be the keeper or warden of such people, to ensure they could do no more harm. but as written and as described, it is not.

a good character would respect and treat his followers and cohorts as equals, and work with them to promote a common goal, he would not need to turn to subversion of their free will, in order to direct them to whatever his personal goals might be. even if the ultimate goal, or overarching ideal is a good one, means and the method are not: the very act of forcibly robbing people of their free will is not a good act.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I've got a good-aligned Thrallherd in my game. In this case, the explanation for the connection between Thrallherd and Thrall/Believers is that they are drawn to the PC in their dreams. It's a subconscious and non-overt control. The analogy to the Life of Brian is apt in this case; the PC isn't using/abusing this power.

EDIT: The key difference is the PC is not forcing people to adopt her way of thinking; rather, she is setting up a psychic bond with those who already share her goals. Its not so much domination as it is shared direction.

 

[krupintupple]

I've got a good-aligned Thrallherd in my game. In this case, the explanation for the connection between Thrallherd and Thrall/Believers is that they are drawn to the PC in their dreams.

that's a very interesting method to explain the class and its power. i may just steal it - with credit of course! actually, i'd have no problem with that and i'd think that someone could easily be good and use the method that you've described.

EDIT: The key difference is the PC is not forcing people to adopt her way of thinking; rather, she is setting up a psychic bond with those who already share her goals. Its not so much domination as it is shared direction.

in your campaign, perhaps, but the Thrallherd (Ex) ability specifically explains that it does not work like this, and does indeed supplement the wishes and desires of the herder over the herded.

 

[green slime]

Let's be pretty clear on this one:

thrall

8 dictionary results for: Thrall
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

thrall /θrɔl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thrawl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
–noun
1. a person who is in bondage; slave.
2. a person who is morally or mentally enslaved by some power, influence, or the like: He was the thrall of morbid fantasies.
3. slavery; thralldom.
–verb (used with object)
4. Archaic. to put or hold in thralldom; enslave.
–adjective
5. Archaic. subjected to bondage; enslaved.
[Origin: bef. 950; ME; OE thrǣl < ON thrǣll slave]

American Heritage Dictionary
thrall (thrôl) Pronunciation Key
n.

1.
1. One, such as a slave or serf, who is held in bondage.
2. One who is intellectually or morally enslaved.
2. Servitude; bondage: "a people in thrall to the miracles of commerce" (Lewis H. Lapham).


tr.v. thralled, thrall·ing, thralls Archaic
To enslave.


Someone calling themselves a "thrallherd" doesn't seem to be a particularly nice guy to me...

"Yeah, I'm a Slave-shephard, but they really do want to follow me around and obey my every whim."

Seems like just how a really evil character would motivate his actions.

Of course, this is all campaign specific. If your game can allow for good-aligned slavery, then go for it. Personally, I have, in the interest of making things clear for players from the get go, and prevent long, needless discussions on morality at the gaming table, written a document outlining what is Good or Evil in my campaign. Note however, that even when you regard slavery as "Evil", nothing prevents its existence within an otherwise mostly good society. There are all sorts of reasons for this apparent paradox. Just as real humans can have conflicting opinions. America's founding fathers spoke about all men being equal, yet owned slaves themselves.