thrallherd PrC.

[irdeggman]

Bottom line.

D&D is a game with many things that do not match the "real world".

The Prestige Class has no alignment restrictions period. So per RAW (and the D&D way of viewing such things) - a thrallherd's ability is not inherently "non-good".

Thrallherd (Ex): A thrallherd who has just entered the class sends out a subtle psychic call for servants, and that call is answered. Essentially, the character gains something akin to the Leadership featt with some important differences.

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.

Going with dictionary definitions for thralls we should also look at "believers" since a thrallherd also gets those in addition to a thrall. I believe that will give an entirely different perspective than using a reading for one select (i.e., "thrall") aspect of the class ability.


Note that it never mentions domination at all. It talks about a psionic resonation which can most definitely be construed as a non-domination thing.

Resonation usually implies that two things have "similar" frequencies (or something else) that mesh together to make something stronger.

In this case it is not a conscious choice for the thralls (and believers) but something deep within that resonates with the thrallherd and this resonation manifests itself as following.

Note that nothing says that the thrallherd "commmands" his thralls - in fact it specifically says that this ability functions "akin to leadership" - with essentially the only difference being that it is not a "conscious" following.

 

[green slime]

Bottom line.

D&D is a game with many things that do not match the "real world".

The Prestige Class has no alignment restrictions period. So per RAW (and the D&D way of viewing such things) - a thrallherd's ability is not inherently "non-good".

Perhaps. If all he asked for was an explanation of RAW. Except:

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?

The OP asked for "our thoughts", and "our feelings", not RAW. I shared my thoughts and feelings on this issue.

He wondered if it would be wrong to tack on an alignment requirement. The answer can never be "yes" to that, period. The DM's call is final, period. Rule zero, period. Regardless of RAW, period.

Yes, people have made a very good case explaining how it may work, for a good-aligned character. Yet, ultimately, it is up to krupintupple to decide whether he wants good-aligned characters with complete control over fanatical believers. Only krupintupple can decide whether such a character fits in with what he envisions for his campaign. Such a character wouldn't be allowed in my campaign, for a multitude of reasons. Doesn't mean yours can't have one.

 

[Corsair]

I had a previous DM who allowed me to turn away would be thralls and believers, voluntarily breaking the link. Basically I kept doing this until I only had evil followers who I didn't mind sacrificing.

Also if I knew I was going to have them replaced soon, if possible I teleported/flew into the wilderness where I would be most likely to pick up orcs, kobolds, goblins, and other races where evil would be more common.

 

[Jhaelen]

IMHO, definitely only suitable for non-good characters. For this and other reasons it's an npc-only prestige class IMC.