Reminder that there is literally nothing wrong with playing as a thrallherd, they're actually a pretty fun class

Actually no, i take this back.

There is one major difference between 10 levels of thrallherd and a level 6 feat, and thats that you can get one additional cohort.

The other shit is all pretty weak, to be honest. Two psionic powers you might already have, and some power point management.

Frankly, its not all that great.

Fluff is the defining factor of RPGs my dude! I guess this is something we're just going to have to agree to disagree on.

While i agree the fluff is morally ambiguous, your wizard and bard are more capable of the same thing, and are just as likely to act on it.

Yeah, but ones going to do it pelvic magic and a force of confidence worthy of Adonis, and the other is going to worm their way into your every waking thought , into your dreams, and into your heart. Its different in the execution!

>implying I would ever let the story progress that far with some faggot fetishist in my group

Except not really.

Thats basically exactly how bard charisma works. Or magic, for that matter.

Seriously, its almost entirely the same thing. The only difference being that one does it by thinking and the other uses a spell to do so. Or really good music.

In execution, there's no difference, especially to the other party.

There is a difference in the roleplay. There is a difference in the story being created by the group. Mechanically they may both net you a companion, but it isn't all just about math and dice rolls.

my dude, you need more romance in your soul. If everything is just dice rolls and mechanical advantages then I'd agree with you. But its not. Its about people getting together and having conflicts and making love and being friends. Sometimes you just need to embrace the fluff.

I'm not even talking about the dice rolls though.

Technically, any psionic can get the same abilities, not just thrallherd. Any bard can roleplay like a god and get his companion. Any wizard can use his magic in exactly the same way, especially if they grab leadership. In fact, with "Good roleplay" a wizard can have a thrall just as loyal as any thrallherd.

Forgetting the rolls entirely and assuming sheer roleplay, THEY ALL AMOUNT TO THE SAME DAMN THING.

So, I think I see what your saying, but I also disagree. What I hear from you is that the destination is what matters, and is more important then the journey. And thats what I disagree with. I think the journey is the fun part.

Except they don't? If you think that the roleplay for a bard talking people into working for him, a wizard using a spell to get people to work for him, and a thrallherd going into their head to get people to work for him are all exactly the same I think you might be somewhat daft. Because by sheer roleplay they really are quite different, and I can't understand how it is possible for you not to understand that. Unless you are being deliberately obtuse in you're defense of the thrall herd, or you have never actually played a game and wouldn't know roleplay if it bit you in the ass.

Don't argue with retarded clichés.

Let me put it this way.

Leadership is essentially basic thrallherd. Thrallherd is mildly adjusted but the same overall thing.

Many magics let you directly alter the mental state of the opposing force, usually someone you want to ally with yourself.

Through use of magic and leadership feat, you are essentially the exact same thing as a thrallherd using mental abilities to accomplish the same thing.

And bards get most of these spells. So even before they have done any sort of performing or barding, they are already on the exact same level as a basic ass thrallherd.

let me think about this. No.

I see what your getting at, and from a mechanical perspective your right. The thrall herd class offers very little substantial features that you cant get elsewhere. But the thrallherd positions you in a singular place roleplaying wise right off the bat that other classes have to work towards.

From a level perspective, both bard and thrallherd start at the same point, level 6.

Since thrallherd is a psionic PrC, it means that it can't be taken off the bat. Its a choice to be made, just as much as the bard taking leadership and using magic to accomplish the same thing.

The biggest difference i see is that thrallherds from a roleplay perspective can only enthrall people they "Resonate" with. Bards can do it to anyone with enough magic and effort.

I guess the difference that im seeing is that the character who would go and spend time becoming a thrall heard is different from a bard who's learned over time how to lead people. Even if that bard uses magic to "convince" people to help them.

To me its like a person who was born a sorcerer and developed that power is different from a wizard who learned magic through hard study. They can do the same things, but how they got that power informs their character.

Regardless of where the ability came from, both types still made the choice to take it.

I would say bards are still worse because a thrallherds ability is basically passive, and they don't actively control it. They just take whoever comes to them, which means the other party either actively accepted the call, or weren't strong enough of will to resist it.

The bard has to make the choice to fuck someone up like this, each and every time, and they can try, again. And again. And again. Until the other guy would happily suck the bards cock for no better reason than the bard said it was a good idea.

At the end of the day, Sheer charisma can be far more terrifying than any mental invitation.

this mostly just comes off as you bending over backwards in an attempt to justify your mind control fetish.

I dont think thats what they're doing. I think they're pointing out the meaninglessness of the class.

If i was gonna do that, i wouldn't be here. I'd be on /d/ or something, actively revelling in it.

Either way, you realize that with a high enough diplo roll, a bard can turn someone into a fanatic for him right? Literally give their lives? sure, it takes a roll of 50 when they are already helpful,, but thats actually pretty manageable for a bard. If anyone isn't helpful, enough magic and diplo rolls can fix that too.

More the meaningless as labeling them as outright evil or something like that. Bards get away with much the same thing on nothing but pure charisma, after all.

The original question is "Whats wrong with thrallherd" and my stance is basically "Nothing that isn't already fucked up with a bard, wizard, or sorcerer"

>More the meaningless as labeling them as outright evil

ahh, ok! I get you. Im sorry, I thought you were talking about mechanics the whole time. I agree with you, I think Lawful Good thrallheards are a pinnacle example of reverse expectations.

Sure, you can play Thrallherd in my setting
But you're going to pull the absolutely most obtuse thrall possible, whose safety is more paramount than your own, and whose wards understand who and what you are and the nature of your relationship with the thrall
And if you do anything to alleviate this, or basically just anything I don't like in the game, I'm going to throw your ass out of my house for being a fetish faggot

Way to be a That Guy GM.

I bet you hate bards too.

Sure is great not playing with That GM

You don't have a group at all.

>That Guy playing the fetish ERP class accuses the DM of being That Guy for even giving him the opportunity to try and create an interesting narrative with his shitty fetish class
No, you see, when you tell me you want to play something that 98% of the time is shitty erotic fantasy, the only reason I would let you do so is if you think you can be that 2% that manages to create an interesting narrative by, say, addressing the fucked up nature of being a Thrallherd, or getting into interesting RP that enriches the story for the other players.
So when you DO play that class that is 98% erotic fetish role playing, and then you proceed to be an erotic fetish role player, I'll tell you to get the fuck out for making the game shittier for everyone else playing.

I have been summoned.

How's it going?

Whatever helps you sleep at night, user

What if I just do all my masturbating away from the table and play it pretty straight when I'm there?

Just a psion with a loyal follower.

No IC or OOC sign of it being a fetish, actively coaches the thrall not to act like a slave in public.

All the while still furiously masturbating to the whole thing.

I don't have a group that would play 3.PF, true.

We play M&M, Savage Worlds, and Burning Wheel instead.

What's inherently fetishistic about the Thrallherd? I was always under the impression that it was just another cool psychic archetype.

Fetish aside, I agree.

Some people have a mind control fetish. Therefore any form of mind control is someone indulging their fetish.

Nothing, it just facilitates retards who can't keep their shit in their pants more easily than most classes as mind controllers are want to do.

While you are correct about it basically just being another archetype, its easily fetishised by the fact that it creates an absolutely loyal thrall that obeys literally anything.

Obviously this opens up routes for lewd shit, making it less "inherently" and more "easily" fetishised.

>There is a difference in the roleplay.
Somebody hasn't read enough Myths.
Come back once you find more people bound by music.

Really? Because what it sounds like is that you're going to do your best to make sure that whoever is in that 2% will walk out and stop playing with you.

Consider the following:

There is tyranid-style hivemind (if you want another example, think of geth platforms from Mass Effect).
And then there is Zerg Queen-style hivemind (Kerrigan).

Thrallherd class is the latter type, and that's why it's shit.

It subverts the will of the communion to a single individual, and that's why it's shit.
A proper hivemind isn't controlled by an elected (or self-elected) leader, it's controlled by EVERY mind in the hivemind.

Think of Omar Technosect. There is no Omar "leader", there is just Omar.
Think of Geth. There is no single "leader" Geth platform, there are just Geth. The only way for Geth to go renegade is if there are more dissenting minds residing in a particular platform than there are conservative minds.

Thrallherd isn't about unity. Thrallherd is about control.
And that's why it's inherently shit.

>played a thrallherd who oopsed into it
>treated their thralls with respect and made sure they were safe
>worst thing they did in the evil campaign was sell their lead thrall to a succubus in exchange for a piece of the macguffin.

The OP picture is made by a guy who draws hypnosis porn.

When did thrallherd ever advertise itself to be about unity?

>thrallherd
And then the Geths choose to follow the leadership of the reapers/shepard

STAR PLATINUM

Well, most thrallherd players justify being thrallherds with "But I'm treating my thralls real good!" and"I care about my thrallherds as much as I care about myself!", which is pretty much the whole idea of the whole "unity" concept - one for all and all for one and all that jazz.
I'm just saying, relying on a single person's benevolence for the whole system not to go wrong is kinda stupid.
A powerful hero is just one personal tragedy away from being a powerful villain.

spbp

To be fair, That still isn't advertising unity. Thats justifying your position over them.

There is a difference. And while i agree that it only takes one thing happening to turn someone from hero to villain, thats possible of literally anyone. A thrallherd shouldn't be any more accountable for that possibility than a wizard would be.

Except Thrallherd isn't a hivemind at all.

This standard is going to eliminate most of human interaction.

Wizard is merely a powerful individual who is accountable solely for his own actions.
Thrallherd has control over his thralls, and thus he is accountable for the actions of his subjects.

When the former turns into a villain, he is merely being a shitty person.
When the latter turns into a villain, he forces others to be shitty people too.

Reminder that those who adulterate or destroy the autonomy of people deserve nothing but zealous persecution.

Just make sure you're not enthralling fellow PCs. Unless the player gives you OOC permission,

that artist has some strange sensibilities

>Be a talented Wilder.
>Mostly contribute to the party as a kind of highly defensive mobile cannon.
>Work that Charisma in party face sitations when the Bard is busy getting busy or otherwise can't be bothered to help out.
>Get to the point where I can pick out powers to really start blasting things.

>Slowly realize that I have a stalker who won't stop giving me nice things.
>Sort of okay with it as long as they stay out of-
>They start making friends with party members.
>Oh God What.
>They travel with us, pretty good sneaky thief, great at peeling enemies off our back line if they get close.
>Still Concerned with how much attention they pay to me.
>Keeps giving me nice things, in excess of price we can afford from our cut of the loot.
>Ask how they're paying for it.
>"Oh the fan-club works to set aside a percentage of their income."
>"Fan club?"
>"Your's!"
>OH GOD NO
>Run away from the party briefly.
>Get tracked down.
>Realize that there have been less direct, less skilled stalkers along the way, around every corner.
>Where are they all coming from Oh god Why?
>Party laughs it off, doesn't understand.
>Neither do I but I am so done.
>Try to reinvent myself, now fifth-circle powers.
>New persona is famous within three weeks of public reward for taking out Cerebrelith.
>Fan-clubs uniting around conspiracy theory that I am actually Me.
>No escape.
>Just try to ignore it to the best of my ability.
>Pretty sure the numbers are still growing though, gifts keep getting pricier.

Fun class indeed, once had a Psion that got tricked into taking levels by duergar. Wound up with a drow oracle thrall and lots of followers he thought were just coming to him for advice.

>Destroying a sapient being's free will
>Ever good

In D&D it's a neutral ability in basically all it's forms.

>Destroying a sapient being's free will with hammers to the face
>Ever good

There's no conscious decision to use the thrall power, it's just a psychic aura that brings people looking for someone to serve to pledge their allegiance to you.

Or to think you're the reason their oracle powers showed up.
Or even dislike you but they're somewhat obsessed and keep doing as you ask to "show you" by doing it better than they think you could. You clearly need their help after all and they want to prove it.

More like.
>Puppeteering corpses in a sick mockery of their former life
>Ever good

Killing respects an opponent's will, because it is preserved intact in death. Rewriting it attacks them on a deeper level. /military and premodern western ethics 101

>Guys, you all said my musical number idea was stupid.
>Right.
>So why is this minotaur helping set up an actual stage with automated props and everything?
>Yer a thrallherd, Harry.
>A what?

Kill an unwilling opponent is the ultimate negation of their will. By condemning them to an unwanted death, you've ending not only their willful opposition against you in the present, but also their ability to exert any other willful act as a living, thinking being in the future. You've gone far beyond merely subjugating their will for a time, into snuffing out the very possibility of rebellion.

That's pretty much how it went for me. NG thrallherd, no idea he was influencing people. Ended up just trying to give life advice to his followers while a NE drow girl ended up his thrall, convinced he was her ticket to power on the surface.

I don't dislike them on a moral or ethical level. Hell, mad scientists that laugh at the word, "ethics," are my jam.
I dislike them due to purely selfish pragmatism.

See, if someone can make others do what they want, and these others have no way to detect these intrusions, that's somewhat threatening. If they can control how they do this, then it's only marginally more threatening than a man with a sword. It's only a tool, at that point, and one that's wielded in a way that you can predict. It's not hard to trust a trained professional, so long as he isn't threatening you. Scale this up or down based on how many people they can effect. It doesn't matter, the principle is the same.

One of the real problems comes when the man wielding the weapon has no control over it. Take for example.
They swing wildly, potentially harming everything and everyone that could be effected by the power that they wield. They can't not threaten me. They can't control what they don't understand, and neither can I.

Well, that's not true. There's always that one little bit of control that we all have, so long as our wits are still our own. Doesn't take much to make a man stop doing things, eh?

Compared to (permanent) reprogramming, killing is slightly less bad. Reprogramming the mind takes away dignity and turns a person into a tool for someone else. Ego death is worse than regular death because one now lacks their ability to even rebel through self-destruction.
Temporary and reversible mind-control is more grey.

Post the rest.

The flavor and mechanics are cool and all, but its defining class feature is still basically Leadership. Fuck Leadership.

I like mind control.

Yes, my puppet!
Be filled with joy as you for my amusement!
I-I mean, yeah... you're totally entitled to that opinion that I in no way agree with. I don't want you to think that at all, but I definitely can't stop you.

This is just glossing over the fact that with enough charisma or magic you can do the exact same thing.

Charles manson sure as fuck did it and last i checked his ass wasn't psychic.

What do you think a cult is?

I forgot the word, "dance."
Clearly, this is the work of a wizard. We should kill him.

Wanna know the difference?

With high enough willpower you can tell the thrallherd to fuck off in the early stages.

With an axe to the head, you dead.

What happens to the souls of people forced to do things they otherwise wouldn't under a thrallherd's influence?
Do they change?
Should they change?
Is forcing someone into the setting's CE afterlife by making it enjoy slaughtering your enemies ok?
Is forcing a soul into the LG realms after stealing their ability to truly be righteous, and just making them like doing good deeds while upholding the rule of society a good thing?
What if they were more likely to go to NG or LN, and they weren't even bad?
If they are your enemy, why not simply give them a shortcut to their final justice?

Don't look at me, I don't prepare my spells.

With reflexes or high enough strength to block with something sturdy you can defend against an axe so it doesn't reach the head.

The fact that you don't have any spells simply means you absolutely must have already cast them all. There is no other possible explanation. NONE! Our God can only imagine what sort of dastardly mischief this vile fiend has been up to, to have left himself in such a vulnerable state. Yet rejoice, my brothers, for his sins have arranged to bring their own justice.
Strike now, men! Kill the heathen while he is weak!

Assuming that the intended effect is already in action, the axe is still the worse option.

On top of this, the axe may maim you in other ways and not just outright kill you.

Spontaneous casters exist, you dork.

>Spontaneous casters exist, you dork.
Sorry, I thought you were a wizard for a moment there. Get a haircut, you hippy. I'm going to bed.

People stopped complaining when I switched to none-demi-human races. Kobold Thrallherd is just a Kobold nation acting as a character "The Kingdom of Vendros agrees, mighty Storath, but believes we should stipulate 7 million cups of ale as we are thirsty."

Very inhuman ones can just be hiveminds, like bug people.

...

Man, I totally love being compared to Charles Manson. He and his group of people that were very much responsible for their actions, with the exception of those losers that were physically coerced into joining the fun, really sounded like swell guys. Little Squeaky Manson might not have been all that good with guns, but she was really cute.

3's my favorite.

Fuuuuuuuck that.

I hate letting my player control more than ONE character.

And your suggesting to let some control more than THREE. In fucking D&D?

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK that! Combat is long enough

This

I mean sure, maybe if I'm GMing for like 1-2 people I'd be more inclined to have thrallherds and necromancers and beastmasters and pokemon trainers and what the fuck ever but I got 5 players already, no way is one player getting as many actions as the rest of the party who already take 15 minutes to find their own ass every turn

I like the one where the will save is successful, but she's just playing along because this is my night to decide what kinky thing we're going to do.

Having taken me on as an apprentice, partner in crime, and fuck buddy, Marisa has taken to having us alternate indulging each other's fetishes every Saturday.
I had just learned a new spell to influence humans, and she dropped hints that she was into that kind of thing, so I try it out on her for "fun," but magicians are harder to influence, and I'm kind of new at this. But no matter, she humors me anyways, or maybe I'm humoring her. She does seem to be having a lot of fun with this role play.

The point stands that charisma in enough quantity and high enough quality is equally as potent as any psychic suggestion.

Its what you do with it that matters.

Nothing really inherently wrong with them on a moral level if you play it straight. The thralls it attracts are specifically people who are subconsciously looking for a purpose to serve anyway.

If anything, you're helping them fulfill their personal goals. Anything beyond that depends on how you treat them and what you use them for. If you spend all day beating them and having them act as footstools then you're probably a huge asshole, if you treat them as loyal followers then you might be a good guy. On the other hand, you could well be treating them as loyal followers and then marauding across the countryside, in which case you're probably an asshole. On the other other hand, the countryside could be the province of Cockburg, where everybody pays their taxes in rape and trades child slaves for drugs and booze, in which case you'd still be a pretty good guy.

There's a lot of factors involved beyond 'Is this mind control', but the key thing to take away from this conversation is that people who play Thrallherds are cancer because their turn inevitably begins with 'uh yeah let me think a sec' while they direct ten billion fucking characters around.

No, because the CHA magic is an abstraction that happens when a fictional world is run through numbers and dice. You can lie, you can deceive, you can coerce, and you can convince, but in the end you don't change the target's mind. They are given information, and change their own minds based upon it. They are responsible for their own actions, misguided as those actions may be.
If you skip that process, and directly change the decisions for someone else, it's a far more intimate violation.
Their actions are not their own, they are yours.
Their thoughts are not their own. They are yours.
They can not act of their own volition, because they no longer have a true volition.
It doesn't take a rocked vector calculation specialist to figure out why some folks may take offence to that. Specially since if they didn't, it might be because you probably made them not, and they can't really tell. Rather paranoia inducing, yeah?

I don't really take any offence to it, so long as it's directed, and it ain't pointed at me, but I can see why others might get their panties all in a twist about it.
If you want some sort of silly moral high ground, just take away brain privileges of evil people you intend to kill anyways. I do recommend killing them shortly thereafter, though, or you might get accused of slavery. That, and thralldom's long term effects on a souls passing into the afterlife haven't really been rigorously tested.

>Free will
>Ever good

I really wish I had free will...