The Hands of Their Winged Overlords: (DnD 3.5/ NC-E)

[Idej]

I see many of you are either almost done or done creating characters.  :)

After New Years I shall have an OOC posted and possibly an IC too.

Once that is done I'll still be accepting more players, but the game shall be going. :)

[NobleWolf]

Perhaps someone will drop by wanting to play a divine caster. We seem to have a lack of them.

[Kate]

Name: Oeah
Race: Demonic
Class: Perverted Cleric (also need help with this one - favored soul or something?)
Gender: Futa

and she may have a friend ... called Lyah

[Zaer Darkwail]

Well, this is tough nut to crack. Most straighforward solution would be human half-fiend cleric of XXX demonic deity (Grazz'zt would be best choice; as he so far only subtle demon and he runs cult which is led by women, and all their women use seduction and running a sex cult would not big stretch for their clerics).

But +4 LA hits very hard as spellcaster and makes you quite weak compared other chars (despite generous benefits of half-fiend template). But more tweaking side you could play as tiefling cleric, tiefling is +1 LA race. But it gets penalty to charisma (but charisma pen is more about people being 'nervous' around you than related to looks). As tiefling you could pick in 1st level Outsider Wings (and so get wings) and being futa can be your tiefling 'fiendish' trait besides wings.

Then you have 7 levels as cleric (or favored soul, but favored soul uses charisma as primary casting stat besides wisdom so it may be not good choice for tiefling but not impossible. Wisdom determines save DC of your spells but charisma determines what level spells you learn so you could start out with 14 charisma after racial penalty and use 4th level stat increase it to 15 and 8th level at 16 and keep increasing charisma through your career). Favored Soul is good option if you want go more combative and 'spamming' divine caster (not to mention better wings at high level) but cleric gets turn/rebuke undead and there are many feats powered by that feature.

There is also of course PrC related to Grazz'zt but so far as I recall it was arcane spellcaster class which specialized in seducing other spellcaster, steal their secres and then backstab with spells (think it as arcane based sneak attack).

[Ryvaken]

Y'know I said earlier that I was going to avoid the lawful stupid trap of having no tolerance for evil at all, but I'm pretty sure serial mindrapists, warmongers, and perverted demons are all on the acceptable target list. I know at this point we're going to have two groups so the chances of any of you lot actually playing in the same game as me is nil, but I am compelled to ask where this trend of evil originated from.

[Kate]

a more interesting question ...

where did the view that perversion themes for a group rp in a sex role playing site for sexual fantasies should be deemed weird come from ?

remember good is cultural and in western culture and many others also sex has many conditions - those valuing some of them being relaxed is deemed of values that are to some "demonic" or "evil", representing that i think is the trust of this - not how about we start burning worlds stuff

[Ryvaken]

I'm not entirely sure what half of that was supposed to mean, but it doesn't seem more than tangentially related to my original point. If you're trying to make a point that sex is not evil, why create a character who is, by definition, a personification of evil?

[Zaer Darkwail]

So, your fiendish cleric of sex cult treats 'evil' as 'matter of perspective'. Classic .

Anycase my char is not evil but more 'Harper neutral'.

[Ryvaken]

I call bullshit. Your character backstory calls for you to be actively prolonging a rather nasty war by taking out anyone who could possibly end it before they have a chance to do so. Promoting death, destruction, and warfare is about as evil as the guys fighting for the five-headed hellbitch.

[Zaer Darkwail]

I am LN follower of Io, so sue me . I just follow his doghma which is in practice 'preserve dragonkin' and outright war between metallics and chromatics (and gems likely third faction crushed between) after last war which wiped nearly both sides is not good way do so. So I essence try whatever means to prevent war ever happening again, if it takes to kill a over zealous (lawful stupid) gold dragon or tyrannical ambittious blue dragon it makes no difference.

[Ryvaken]

...okay, it's one thing to not think of it in those terms, but to defend it? You're an arms dealer backing opposing terrorist groups so they can shoot at eachother more.

[NobleWolf]

Y'know I said earlier that I was going to avoid the lawful stupid trap of having no tolerance for evil at all, but I'm pretty sure serial mindrapists, warmongers, and perverted demons are all on the acceptable target list. I know at this point we're going to have two groups so the chances of any of you lot actually playing in the same game as me is nil, but I am compelled to ask where this trend of evil originated from.

Actually, if everyone is playing a non-lawful and/or non-good character, that makes YOUR character the odd one out. That is, the one clashing with the group. Which is a very odd development, I must admit.
We have enough players that two parties is a viable, if not necessary, course of action though. I'd gladly party with the "unwanted" player characters, if you don't want to.
And what's with the "serial mindrapists" crack? Last I checked Thrallherds could be of any alignment.

[Zaer Darkwail]

What? As follower of Io I focus in a preventing war or any massive draconic conflict ever occuring in first place so where comes from comparing my actions as selling weapons to terrorists . Finding a permament peace would be fullfillment to the goals of Io but 'dragon wars' as conflict is called universally (metallic vs chromatic) is eternal as both chief deities in either end dislike each other very much. So best case is constant 'fire truce' as it is now in the game world so far as I know. Only conflicts being tiny skirmishes here and there so my aims would go to prevent loss of any true dragon (draconic blooded people are not considered much in that philosophy but half-dragons or other draconic beings are considered under Io's protection).

Of course some cases I would need deal someway with a true dragon but if one true dragon endangers peace what is now (and if it goes out then we more than half of present true dragon population and thousands of half-dragons and draconic beings).

Of course all my chars beliefs and such are pure OOC info and no one knows anything about it. Consider all over five hundred years of actions from his ninja/monastery it would send monastery into ruin and also could spark the war go again.

[Ryvaken]

So can a necromancer wizard. I have a far easier time envisioning good in one who animates the corporeal remains of the dead than I do in anyone who controls the mind of another. You have chosen the path of the Illithid, without even racial inclination to excuse the abomination. I would not party with one such as that under any circumstance, in any genre, of any system. I say without irony or exaggeration that "thrallherd" is the most depraved class to which I have recollection, and I say this after searching the evil splatbooks trying to find another to take that title from it.



Zaer, there's always the possibility that one side could win.

[NobleWolf]

So can a necromancer wizard. I have a far easier time envisioning good in one who animates the corporeal remains of the dead than I do in anyone who controls the mind of another. You have chosen the path of the Illithid, without even racial inclination to excuse the abomination. I would not party with one such as that under any circumstance, in any genre, of any system. I say without irony or exaggeration that "thrallherd" is the most depraved class to which I have recollection, and I say this after searching the evil splatbooks trying to find another to take that title from it.



Zaer, there's always the possibility that one side could win.

Don't bother Zaer, Ryvaken has everything all figured out, or at least he firmly believes he does. I'm not about to be dragged into a childish morality debate with him, I suggest you stay out of one as well.

[Zaer Darkwail]

I would had said to Io it is like watching two his children fight to death. So to him there is no winner in that situation, in either side winning is horrible loss to him. So prevent the death conflict (or death itself) would be more winning than supporting either side to win the war. Of course it needs worked out in both sides so that neither side desires to win anymore (and so end whole conflict without destroying either one). As in end lenghtening the conflict also adds tremendous pile of corpses (than just quick conflict in one draconic generation instead hundred) but my order's teachings even minimizing the amount per conflict serves Io.

Edit; Well, I like philosophical moral debates myself. Just that most people do not like them or they grow boring or stubborn during the discussion. To me good discussion is one which opens people's mind open for posibillities or new ideas.

[NobleWolf]

I would had said to Io it is like watching two his children fight to death. So to him there is no winner in that situation, in either side winning is horrible loss to him. So prevent the death conflict (or death itself) would be more winning than supporting either side to win the war. Of course it needs worked out in both sides so that neither side desires to win anymore (and so end whole conflict without destroying either one). As in end lenghtening the conflict also adds tremendous pile of corpses (than just quick conflict in one draconic generation instead hundred) but my order's teachings even minimizing the amount per conflict serves Io.

Edit; Well, I like philosophical moral debates myself. Just that most people do not like them or they grow boring or stubborn during the discussion. To me good discussion is one which opens people's mind open for posibillities or new ideas.

That may be true, but this really isn't the place. Perhaps you should take it to a different thread or just PM each other?

[Zaer Darkwail]

Ah, true. Could take it into PM's but then again I am discussing about it first place because if Ryvaken is in same group as I and I do plan sooner or later others finding out about his secret 'career' so would like discuss how their PC's react to it and hope it does not result into inner party conflict/drama. Altough some details would remain secret but concept itself would be open in table.

[Ryvaken]

You're the one who asked, Wolf.

[Idej]

Well, looks like we might need that OOC thread up now.  :)

Here it is folks.

Hands of Their Winged Overlords-OOC

[NobleWolf]

You're the one who asked, Wolf.

Perhaps, but you're pressing it.

Ok fine, here is how I see it. Your view on the matter is without foundation. You don't know how I plan to play such a character, nor do you bother to ask. You've forgotten to take into consideration that what a person could do is not what they will do.
A wizard could throw fireballs into the crowded street. That does not make all wizards nor spells evil. A man could stab an innocent newborn child with his short sword, but not every man who picks up a sword is evil. But because I choose to use a tactic that doesn't harm the target, I am some "twisted" person. Did it not occur to you that charming or even dominating a perceived enemy is just as good, if not more so, than simply striking him dead?
As for thralls and believers, the whole affair seems to be rather involuntary, or at least it can be. The thralls and believers come because they're psychically linked with the Thrallherd. It isn't as if my character has control over who answers the subconscious call. How she treats them, however, is completely up to her. While many people may abuse this special connection, others will treat their thralls with kindness and respect. I charge while Thrallherds could use this as a parasitic relationship, they could just as easily turn it into a symbiotic one.
Honestly, to compare my character to a brain-eating illithid, zombie-crafting necromancer, or satanic cult worshiper is quite a stretch and a little insulting. Your talking about beings that sacrifice people, even souls, to their depraved gods for perks and thrills.

[Ryvaken]

Look up "thrall" in the dictionary.
–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
3.    slavery; thralldom.
–verb (used with object)
4.    Archaic. to put or hold in thralldom; enslave.
–adjective
5.    Archaic. subjected to bondage; enslaved.
At the very least, you've cut out "good" alignments. A kind slave owner is still a slave owner. And as noted, you don't have a culture to fall back on to try and explain the behavior. Even then, grotes

But let's take it a step back and say that the relationship can be symbiotic, and even go so far as to charge that the thrallherd, a class that is completely built around various degrees of mentally violating other sentient creatures, is incapable of controlling who answers the call. It was still that character's choice to develop those abilities.

[NobleWolf]

Look up "thrall" in the dictionary.
–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
3.    slavery; thralldom.
–verb (used with object)
4.    Archaic. to put or hold in thralldom; enslave.
–adjective
5.    Archaic. subjected to bondage; enslaved.
At the very least, you've cut out "good" alignments. A kind slave owner is still a slave owner. And as noted, you don't have a culture to fall back on to try and explain the behavior. Even then, grotes

But let's take it a step back and say that the relationship can be symbiotic, and even go so far as to charge that the thrallherd, a class that is completely built around various degrees of mentally violating other sentient creatures, is incapable of controlling who answers the call. It was still that character's choice to develop those abilities.

Not so fast.
You conveniently leave out a thrall can also mean; a person totally subject to some need, desire, appetite, etc..
It can also mean; a state of complete absorption or a state of servitude or submission.
Yes, I do know the definition of thrall. It can refer to willing servitude and even passionate servitude.
Definitions just as legitimate, and perhaps in this case more fitting for my character.
Besides, if the true intention of the class was really as vile and wicked as you say, why doesn't it have an evil or non-good alignment requirement? It seems the very creator of the class didn't see it the same way as you, so why should I?

[Ryvaken]

The flaw in your argument is where you placed the atrocity. It is in the act of violating the sovereign mind of another and enslaving him, not because he is a threat to himself or others, but because you can. How you treat your herd of slaves is far and away less telling than the fact that you have a herd of slaves.

Edit: Okay, my computer did something weird and posted an earlier draft without me realizing it. Let me play catchup here.

Okay, first off I reported every definition of thrall I landed on. Then I decided semantics was a rather pointless game to play, which is why it didn't make my final draft.
As to why the class wasn't more appropriately created, it comes from a psionic handbook. I've long since given up trying to puzzle out what those writers were smoking and is generally simpler to disallow the books in their entirety. However I find that expressing such opinions is generally counterproductive to making a proper argument, and mildly hypocritical as there is some material that is salvageable. Thrallherd is actually one of the least objectionable in this regard, needing only a nongood restriction. I do accept that not everyone shares my opinion that mental domination of this kind is one of the more depraved abominations of the human imagination, otherwise I would have had the class placed in Vile Darkness, although Lords of Madness is also appropriate with the Illithid aspirations.

[NobleWolf]

The flaw in your argument is where you placed the atrocity. It is in the act of violating the sovereign mind of another and enslaving him, not because he is a threat to himself or others, but because you can. How you treat your herd of slaves is far and away less telling than the fact that you have a herd of slaves.

Edit: Okay, my computer did something weird and posted an earlier draft without me realizing it. Let me play catchup here.

Okay, first off I reported every definition of thrall I landed on. Then I decided semantics was a rather pointless game to play, which is why it didn't make my final draft.
As to why the class wasn't more appropriately created, it comes from a psionic handbook. I've long since given up trying to puzzle out what those writers were smoking and is generally simpler to disallow the books in their entirety. However I find that expressing such opinions is generally counterproductive to making a proper argument, and mildly hypocritical as there is some material that is salvageable. Thrallherd is actually one of the least objectionable in this regard, needing only a nongood restriction. I do accept that not everyone shares my opinion that mental domination of this kind is one of the more depraved abominations of the human imagination, otherwise I would have had the class placed in Vile Darkness, although Lords of Madness is also appropriate with the Illithid aspirations.

I'll continue then, and perhaps show you a possibility of thrallherd that you may have overlooked.
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 "commands" 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.

The class goes beyond our mental understandings in this sense. The thralls are literally drawn not by commands per se, but a need. Take notice, if they walked through an anti-magic field, they would still be thralls. With the right interpretation, the believers come out of a sense of duty or destiny. Perhaps I am not so much as sending an order, but an offer.
Look at it in that light, and perhaps you can see what I mean.