Oh, Fort Rannick would also be cool. Haven't seen Harrowstone, but knowing Paizo, I bet it is too.
It would be... though I'm not sure about how well the resolution would work on all of these. Then again, I wish D&D had a smaller grid at times so more people could fit in one reasonable real-life area (especially since I have a six player group). I remember trying to squeeze a battle into one car on the lightning rail :)
Been a long time since I looked at Harrowstone though. If they had a more "D&D" feeling texture pack, that would be awesome:)
I thought of building Harrowstone from The Haunting of Harrowstone AP (Part 1 of their latest path) as, ahem, *research* on D&D, which MineCraft is killing at the moment. It's so bad that I can't even remember the name of the adventure path, and I subscribed to start getting that.
I have not *yet* managed to burn my house down. Admittedly, this is only because I had not built a house yet when I started the forest fire.
It was really just carelessness. I had just explored a giant (seriously - four hours of exploring) cave system that I got lost in. I decided to escape by opening a portal to the Nether (great idea right?) which mostly worked until six ghasts with bad attitudes showed up and started blowing up the world. I dug into the side of a hill of netherrack with two hearts left, built a portal back to the real world, and fled for my life. Unfortunately, I appeared in a cave, with no torches because "who needs torches in the nether? I've got flint and steel to set netherrack on fire!".
Managed to get out using netherrack blocks on fire for light and digging my way up to the surface. It was dark and I was going to put together a crude shelter, but needed light first. And then I got a lot more light than I wanted :)
I don't think I'm going back to the nether until they put in more stuff I want - I got soulsand, a bunch of netherrack (which I'm not really that interested in - I don't like the look much, though the fire is nice), and some glowstone.
Note to self: When using netherrack for light in the overworld, make sure that it is away from any wood or overhanging tree branches. Doubly-so if you are in a forest.
PS: I'm sorry to all the trees, pigs, and other animals killed by a forest fire allegedly started by careless netherrack placement.
PPS: Ok, maybe not for the pigs - the roast meat was excellent.
1) The tunneling and constantly running into lava above you dream. Seriously - the first time you hit lava, it's cool. It's like "yay! I finally hit lava!". Second time it's ok, but it has lost a bit of the appeal. And then it's "*another* pool of lava?!? Seriously?!?"
2) The weeks of unending rain dream. I can't believe there was ever a time when I thought weather was a good idea - ok, it is still cool with thunder or rain when you are indoors. Outside, not so much. Outside for days on end during the rain? Really bad.
3) The dream of unending walking to get back to home. Having had to walk 4000+ blocks to get back to home, it sucks :) Get to see some nice scenery at first, not so great the fourth or fifth time you do it.
4) The "OMG this guy is unpossible" dream - the dream of the guy invading your base and dominating you with every object imaginable - not just diamond swords, but axes, shovels, dirt, wool :)
5) The unending "you were invisible/glitched/cheating" "no U" arguments that follow number 4. E-peen measurement included.
I'm told that Lava will eventually turn to dirt if removed from the lava 'pool' over a period of time, yet I have not seen this in effect. Is this truth or yet more mis-information on the Wiki?
No idea. Hopefully not, or it will ruin my idea for a lava lighting system.
Come to think of it, I have seen online servers using lava lighting for areas, so it probably is not true.
Not a rule, but something to consider (I haven't done this yet but should): remap 'throw carried object' from 'Q' to something far away from the movement buttons. I've my stuff a fair amount due to being too far to the left (and opened my inventory, but that's not as bad) - luckily, I have yet to throw anything into lava, let alone something important :)
I haven't really had problems with creepers yet. Spiders, on the other hand - freakin' ninjas jumping me in the morning off of my roof!
1) Rule One: Never dig under you. You could fall into lava or a giant, underground cavern full of monsters. I probably should have posted this before Salama's mishap.
2) Rule Two: Never dig directly above you.
That's really all I have - I'm sure everyone else is better at this than I am. I have found iron and gold but no diamond yet - not sure when I will go looking, as I am still working on other stuff.
Not sure if I want to mess around with lava yet... I guess I have some time to decide.
Currently, I am building two walls, parallel to each other with a cleared area in the middle that (in theory) is monster free - lit with torches. Not sure how well it is working - I found one zombie in a cleared area today, so I'm not sure if there was just one area that was too dark in there or if my wall wasn't tall enough somewhere.
My walls are currently two to three blocks tall - I try to make sure that they are two blocks above the surrounding terrain, but monsters might be able to jump from a block away. And they are not spider proof - I haven't run into an issue yet, but will have to make them spider proof at some point. And they are made of wooden planks, so I am going to have to do work before I mess with lava anywhere nearby.
So far, I have cleared most of one mountaintop, down to a valley, and across the valley to the next mountaintop. Not sure how long my nerves are going to take this though. I know - I'm a wuss. It really hasn't been too bad - three creepers that I took out from on top of my walls (I pretty much never go down to the ground outside of extending the walls during the day).
I hate trees though - they give me materials, but there is nothing as nervewracking as having to take out a bunch of trees - particularly the big ones that can take quite a while climbing to take down.
Not sure at what point I will start on my more permanant wall that will hopefully look awesome - at least as a proof of concept before I spend all this time on one area.
No. I refuse. It's bad enough with my current unmodded version when one pops out of nowhere - I refuse to have one that actually looks scary - I will never get over the nightmares if I put that in my game.
I may have gotten overly ambitious right now. I am working on building a wall around a valley, pacifying the area, and then building an artificial lake. So far, building the wall is going ok, but slow. Not sure if I am even a sixth of the way done. Doesn't help that I am doing this all as I build - I don't really have a plan until I get to the next hill.
And I currently don't have a real feasible idea for how to wipe everything out in the valley once I finish the wall.
You are a Paldin of Pelor (or fill in some other anti-undead good god). There is an EXTREMELY powerful Vampire Lord who rules the region. The only way this virtual godling can be slain is for a Paladon of Pelor to perform a ritual and Channel all his LoH at an old shrine during High Noon of the 7th day of the 7th month of the 7th year of the 7th decade of the 7th centry of the 7th millenium... You are the only one who can do this and end the evil. The day of the ceremony a farmer brings his innocent son begging for you to heal him. One lay of hands (wuth the associated mercy) will heal the child, but if you do that you condemn this world to 10,000 years of the Vampire Lord.
Do you save the child? or Destroy the Vampire Lord?
"I am previously engaged. Here is 300 goldpieces. It will cover the expenses for a curative spell. Good day sir."
And you could also arrange to meet with them the next to make sure the son got healed. You could even meet them after doing the ritual to ensure that they get healed that day (in case a cleric has an issue with just doing this for money - they should certainly perform the healing on the word of the awesome paladin who just rid the land of the uber-ridiculous vampire).
Why does the healing of the child have to happen on this day and how does the paladin know it needs to happen that day?
"Innocents? All I see are enemies and collaberators."
Besides if you are going to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs.
In my opinion, if your defense of the neutrality of an action are the stock lines in movies used to indicate that the "good guys" are bad guys in disguise, you might want to rethink your position (at least from a genre-sense).
The winners are always good guys.
Thats because they get to write the history from their point of view.
I'm just pointing out that given the super strict interpretation of good & evil that some folks have on this board, anytime the adventurers fight or kill ANYTHING then they interpret it as an act of evil (Oh, noes! they just murdered that orc/dragon/vampire/demon before it got a chance to prove if it was evil or not!)
It's getting rather silly.
I don't want to comment on this thread really - just that this is an often used lines in American movies to show that the group saying it (usually a governmental group that operates on "gray" ground) are the bad guys in the movie, despite their claims to be good.
And I don't think your criticism works for this case - no one is caring about the cultists or the guy who got the medusa pregnant, just the medusa (at least from what I can tell - I hate these threads because everything moves so fast and suddenly someone's supposition becomes what factually occurred).
I can see either side and there probably is no way to tell from this thread what actually happened as far as how it was presented and how the combat went down.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I agree that one drink isn't enough to claim rape. However, the training they put us through strongly recommends not engaging in intercourse when alcohol is present to avoid the situation completely.
IANAL (I am not a lawyer), so everyone should get legal advice for their relevant nation, state, and/or municipal laws. Due to this, I am not going to comment on those issues at all.
"Innocents? All I see are enemies and collaberators."
Besides if you are going to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs.
In my opinion, if your defense of the neutrality of an action are the stock lines in movies used to indicate that the "good guys" are bad guys in disguise, you might want to rethink your position (at least from a genre-sense).
Threads like these always make me feel I did the right thing by dropping alignment from my game.
That's what I was trying to get at - it's not that I hate the alignment system, but the arguments on what each act means. Being able to debate things without needing to come to a conclusion makes gray style games better, in my opinion.
My players fall firmly in the "we're always the good guys no matter what" crowd - so no taking prisoners, etc. Which is nice at times, and not nice at others. And there are never goblin women and children for their games.
Wait guys, wait a minute. She may be a good medusa trapped an evil...
<Talking stopped due to being stone>
TPK FTW.
So, by your logic, all 'neutral' dragons should be killed. They can kill instantly with a breath. Anything that's not good and dangerous needs to be killed, including adventurers, gods, etc.
I would expect you to have an Anti-Mutant League flag in your closet.
I'm waiting for the "she could be sorcerer with still, silent, and eschew material feats who could wipe us out!" argument.
I get the argument for the heat of the moment combat. I can even get the paranoia of dealing with one - having had a near party wipe from a bodak when it caught everyone with its gaze in one round. So I won't realy comment on this, other than saying that (in my opinion) it is a play style issue. My only other comment would be that I think that the problem with the alignment system is that there needs to be a final call on what something is, so there is no ambiguity of a character reflecting on their actions and changing their view of something.
For Mikaze (and others who like the non-evil medusa argument and the dealing with medusa issue), I would recommend looking at "The Queen of Stone" book by Keith Baker. It is set in Eberron, and is the first in the Thorn of Breland series. If you are familiar with Eberron, the plot is:
The Queen of Stone:
The Daughters of Sora Kell demand recognition for Droaam, their fledgling kingdom of monsters. Ambassadors from the Five Nations gather at the fortress of the Great Crag to hear what their dangerous new neighbors have to say.
Thorn's mission: protect the Brelish ambassador and rescue a captured hero of the crown. It will take all of Thorn's skills to manage both without bringing war to Breland.
That is, if she can prevail on the Daughters' deadly warlord.
This game literally has me watching grass grow, in game. Seriously - I am trying to get grass to spread into my underground cave so I can start an animal pen. Hopefully this works.
Iron needs to be way more common. Especially because of rail tracks.
Thanks for the link! I had found it an hour after posting, so now my garden works. And I've already slaughtered my first batch of pigs! And now my tree farms are working!
Unfortunately, I did not get everything working before I decided that I needed to go outside for "just a bit to gather wood". Tunnel out, look around for a second, and get rushed by two creepers. Instantly killed - I only know what happened since I heard the explosions.
Spawn back out in the middle of the desert, only a rough idea of how to get back to my base (I know - noob, and I hadn't gotten wool yet to make a bed. Next time, I am totally mugging every sheep I see on the first day of my game). And thirty seconds after I spawn, night falls. Oh well - at least I had time to build a pathetic hole in the sand to hide in.
This game literally has me watching grass grow, in game. Seriously - I am trying to get grass to spread into my underground cave so I can start an animal pen. Hopefully this works.
I swear this game hates me and gets harder with each new game. First try - well, ok, my first try sucked since I didn't know what I was doing, wasted half the day (no tutorials or research), and ended up hiding in a small dirt house (2x2x2 baby!) while listening to stuff outside trying to kill me. With no torches.
The next game was nice - got a nice set up going, then I want to try something different. See virtually no bad guys and get in no fights - the closest was a skeleton archer tried to pot shot me on my front lawn.
Start over - dumped in an arctic wasteland. Survive for a while, get tired of spiders (ninjas man!) and trying to build a farm.
Start over again - dumped in the middle of a desert wasteland. I think to myself "self, you really didn't know how good you had it in the arctic." Hike half of the first day, get to mountains with grass and blessed trees. Hike up a mountain, dig a shelter. No time to do more than secure it with blocks - not even a door - but I am ready to mine for resources. The next morning, a creeper blows up half the structure. I survive, move over and build a more permanant house.
My house is on top of a mountain (a steep mountain). It is grand central station for bad guys. Every morning, I look out and see at least one creeper waiting. My first morning there, I killed three of them. The next morning, two more. Now, I don't even go out since I have to kill so many of the things. Sigh.
Counterpoint: Rangers are not required to hate/be out for revenge against their Favored Enemies.
Example: I played a dwarven ranger with FE: Humans to represent his study of their culture in preparation to be an ambassador from the dwarven kingdoms to the human kingdoms.
Don't you know all rangers are required to come from a small village that was wiped out by <insert first favored enemy here> before their eyes, while they were spared so that they could nurse their hunger for vengeance :)
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:
I think you invented a variant class of Ranger.
Ambassador.
Can you really call it a variant class if you change none of the rules it uses? I don't believe changing the fluff makes it a different class, nor do I believe changing a character's class makes him a different character.
Envisioning different characters with the same mechanic? Inconceivable! We've got 11 characters in core - one for each class :)
These are just ideas and your milage may vary since they are trying to reconcile story with system.
You could state that V needs the symbol of the warden (and possibly the defeat of the five) as an event that changes her perception of herself and her circumstance. So instead of being controlled by her past, she now feels able to control it instead. Maybe she was always more powerful than she thought but had thought she was weak and unable to help her husband.
Alternatively (and this is really unpolished and probably unhelpful), you could look at inventing a ritual to bind the authority of the badge to her - possibly based on what the Whispering Way was doing with the binding of the sheriff's spirit.
Which has been admited on this messageboard to being flawed. There should have been more earnable trust points.
By whom? Where? I've seen it complained about in numerous threads, but have not seen a Paizo employee come forth and say anything about the system presentation itself. (One Paizo comment about how it's only used in the first installment) I'm probably missing the thread somewhere...
In this thread, James Jacobs admitted that there were flaws in the trust system. Specifically, that not enough trust points were detailed to let a party reach the maximum score. Specifically in this post (my excerpt is slightly edited):
James Jacobs wrote:
So that implies a maximum score of +13, which still isn't enough to get you to 36. What happened? A simple math error compounded by a miscommunication—the trust mechanic was added to the adventure late during development as a way to track PC success in befriending the town. As a result, I just didn't put enough trust awards into the adventure, unfortunately. A simple solution would be to simply double all of the trust awards in the adventure (with the exception of the ioun stone one).
A better solution would be this one: Another element that was intended to be put into the adventure but got left out was the suggestion that GMs award trust points to the PCs whenever they do something above and beyond what's in the adventure to help the town. Providing healing for free to townsfolk, befrending people by making townsfolk helpful via Diplomacy, and being generous with money are all great ways to earn trust point awards of +1 here and there.
Not an unfixable issue or one that requires a lot of work even, but definately an issue as written in the AP.
Many of the haunts from the article on pg 64 are directly referenced in the adventure.
Which spoils the adventure about as much as reading the skeleton entry in the Bestiary. Without the context of the adventure, the stats don't spoil anything.
I disagree since the haunt descriptions in the article of pg 64 include the specific methods of destruction, which characters may or may not know. It is one thing to hide player knowledge of the exact stats of a monster but another to have to fumble around with the knowledge of the only way to destroy a monster forever. See every argument on the tarrasque in 3.5 for example.
EDIT: I don't mean to be too forceful on this, but I think people should be aware of this before deciding that it is just like reading a monster stat block.
Just an FYI I reread the module last night and the tactics of TSM are as follows:
"[TSM] then follows that up with magic missiles (working down from maximized to empowered to normal versions of the spell)--he'll generally split up his magic missiles amount different targets rather than focusing fire on one foe, in a cruel attempt to prolong and distribute the suffering."
So if you play him as written and don't concentrate all four magic missiles on a single target, like everyone is assuming in their examples above, and spread the damage out among the party -- viola! He's instantly more balanced. Problem solved.
Yes, the OP realizes this. The issue some have is that they do not view that as in character or that their parties will complain that the Splatter Man "took a dive" and thus detract from their enjoyments.
Douglas Muir 406 wrote:
So, played intelligently, TSM is certainly a PC killer and probably a TPK.
How to fix this?
1) Don't play him intelligently. This is what the module recommends. It has him split his magic missile attacks among the PCs instead of wiping one out and then turning to the next. This is dramatic (Pow, you lose 20 hp... now, boom, so do you) but painfully suboptimal; it lets the PCs carry on attacking while the cleric heals them with channeled energy.
Personally I don't hate this option, but it does make the ghost's 20 Int pretty meaningless, and more experienced players will be aware that the BBEG is playing suboptimally.
2) Split the difference. Play him as smugly overconfident, and have him use the suboptimal tactics until he perceives the PCs as a threat (i.e., has lost X amount of hp, is reduced to half hits, whatever). Then have him go nuts.
I think this was the main post that would answer your questions (mainly the second point on destroying haunts):
Brandon Hodge wrote:
Stonesnake wrote:
I find the Haunts quite interesting and I can't wait to run them, however I have several questions about their mechanics as my players are very much rules-lawyers and will want to know EXACTLY how they work.
I should say up front that I have a KQ article addressing some of these very same questions in the works -the same sorts of questions I had as I wrote the haunts for my Haunting of Harrowstone article. So, if you promise not to tell anyone I'll spill:
1. Attacking Haunts
The rules already address your first 3 questions in the 4th section under "Haunt Rules": On the surprise round in which a haunt manifests, positive energy applied to the haunt (via channeled energy, cure spells, and the like) can damage the haunt's hit points (a haunt never gains a Will save to lessen the damage done by such effects, and attacks that require a successful attack roll to work must strike AC 10 in order to affect the haunt and not merely the physical structure it inhabits). Unless the haunt has an unusual weakness, no other form of attack can reduce its hit points.
So, there you go. Hit AC 10. Haunts get no Will save if you're using cure spells. Viola! Personally, I think AC should be 10+haunt CR, and they should have the incorporeal miss chance, but I'm a mean bastard. The holy weapon quality technically doesn't count as positive energy, but as a GM I'd probably let it fly, but only let the weapon deal the +2d6 holy damage, and nothing else.
2. Destroying Haunts
I pretty much covered this in my post above, but here it is again. Most certainly characters are aware of local legends, superstitions, and folklore for dealing with haunts that their players will not be aware of. My suggestion is to handle it the same way you'd handle PCs trying to find other info: with Knowledge checks. Say they face the rolling fire haunt from the March 9th Paizo Blog After they've run into it once, they return to the dungeon a few days later and *poof* it sets alight and starts rolling after them. Again. "Wait a sec!" says the cleric. "I have heard of these things! Everyone turn your cloaks inside out! Merisiel, hand me a knife!"
My rule is to use Knowledge (religion) or (local), with a DC equal to 15+ the haunt's CR. Alternatively, after you've dismissed the haunt once, but before you've figured out how to destroy it, you could try communicating with the haunt itself, with the new rules for rapping haunts in the article's sidebar. It worked for the Fox Sisters...should work for PCs! Pull out the ouija board and have some fun! =-)
oWerewolf is clearly a Saturday Morning Cartoon simulation.
This is because the Pentax are literally Captain Planet villains.
I still have fond memories of werewolf though. Memories of the high-rage leader of our party flipping out and cutting me in almost in half with a silver glaive during a stare-down. We were staring down since his plan was to "go there and kill the bad guys" and I objected that that was more of a goal, not a plan.
That and the final battle of that campaign (after begging the storyteller to let me heal my deflated lung from the previous event) where the BBEG 5th gen vampire triple-botched on a movement check and managed to fall and stake himself on a tree root sticking out of the side of a hill. Good times - I probably wouldn't go back to that, but it was fun at the time.
Good and evil are, to me, about the harm done to others. Is the person being hurt? No, they're already dead. Peoples reaction to it is more a mater of societies conceptions about the respect owed to the dead. People kill and eat neutral creatures all the time, start wars that kill hundreds of thousands of good and neutral beings all without being EVIL.. these seem far worse than abusing a glorified sack of meat from which the soul has already departed.
I would agree with this - particularly when you start getting into the magical creatures that are sentient in Pathfinder. Are you guys willing to say that all dragonshide armor makes you totally evil?
I agree that this might be offputting for the GM to deal with in game play, but I wouldn't label it as evil. And if the party got a reputation for it, it would affect their interactions with everyone who cared about this societal norm and who had heard about it.
Also (and this is a serious question, since I have never dealt with it in my games) - what do people do with the dead bodies of everything the party has killed?
in the magic item compendium there is a device called an artificers monocle. It's primary function is to use detect magic as an identify spell. You identify items fast and easy and alot cheaper than with the regular identify spell.
Identify takes 8 hrs artificers monocle takes 1 minute/10 rounds which ever you prefer.
Interesting. I have the Magic Item Compendium but haven't really looked through it too much. But, I think I prefer to just houserule :) I still play 3.5, but generally handwave it since one of my players always plays a Warlock that can detect magic at will and has a good Knowledge [Arcana] skill, plus I vastly prefer to not have to have more notes on what treasure is what.
Steven Tindall wrote:
As far as the main topic of this thread: Kill the bad guys and take their stuff.
To me thats how the game has always been played and what I look forward to doing on a weekly basis. I don't bothering asking moral questions about imaginary fantastic creatures.
The day I can change into a daywalking half-vampire and become a cleric of the god of undeath then due to impressive service be rewarded by being turned into a death knight like my most favorite charecter ever, then I may stop and pause to question morals but I doubt it.
Then again maybe it's just my group. We found some magic sand in one adventure that acted as a slow spell against anyone that it was thrown on. This was a d20 module not a core published adventure. Anyway we stopped the mission let the children we were trying to rescue be slaughterd by the bad guy and gatherd as much sand as possible and became rich beyond our charecter levels....
My group is similar in the not wanting to deal with morality in their escapist fantasy games, but they go the other way - they are always good, but orcs should always be evil and there should never be modules leaving you with the dreaded orc women and children to deal with.
I pretty much covered this in my post above, but here it is again. Most certainly characters are aware of local legends, superstitions, and folklore for dealing with haunts that their players will not be aware of. My suggestion is to handle it the same way you'd handle PCs trying to find other info: with Knowledge checks. Say they face the rolling fire haunt from the March 9th Paizo Blog After they've run into it once, they...
And I would say that if the characters don't have the knowledge skills, you might encourage them to ask the local people nearby, researching any old stories concerning the area (much as is done with the history of the prison in the AP).
I am such a grognard...
I miss old grimtooths traps.
I don't know that I would go so far as to have traps that target other areas for damaging spells (it seems too much DM versus players to me, but that is just me), but you could have traps that are delayed (firing some number of rounds after they are triggered).
Alternatively, you could have some traps that the players need to make sure aren't triggered - for example, traps that set off alarms alerting the enemy, traps that set off a more complex trap (spikes pop out of ceiling and it starts descending, etc), or traps that create monsters come to mind. Setting the trap off wouldn't seem like a great idea then.
Still going with not having enough information to make more of a judgment on this, but that if it is bothering you, mention it to your group.
EDIT: You could also have resetting traps. Sure, the party has found out that the door has a trap on it that casts dispel magic or something on them, but they still have to deactivate it to get through. Also, traps that damage or destroy the body (though they might use the pieces).
With the notion of balance being tied to Wealth By Level, 'looting' feels kind of anachronistic anyway.
No matter if I bring a crowbar and pull up every brass tack to bring back for resale in my large sack, and the dude next to me walks through the adventure fastidiously touching *nothing,* we are both supposed to have 1000 gp at 2nd level, and thanks to the 'understood' concept of 'party treasure,' that's pretty much the way it's always been.
It's meta-game-y as all hell, even more so than an MMO, but I'd see nothing wrong with a game where the 'treasure' was all just meaningless items for resale, and the adventurers showed up and traded it all in at the end of the adventure for WBL-appropriate gear.
There have been times that I've wanted my players to go along with something like this - particularly when the adventure has too many humanoid opponents and their wealth-by-level gets off, or they pull a 'Greyhawk' (yes, my players wanted to strip all of the stonework out of the floor of the Temple of Elemental Evil to sell). Unfortunately, they love looting too much.
I have stopped making them identify gems and potions and have identified them on the spot - it was too much work trying to keep notes on what everything was from the cryptic things I would tell them when they get around to it two months in real time later ("Vials of blue liquid? *Looks at notes* Are you sure it was blue liquid? Not pink or green? *crickets* I got nothing."
All the PCs have their own initiatives (and any NPC party members), but similarly statted monsters go on the same initiative (so all goblin warriors on one roll, goblin shaman on another, wolves on a third, etc). It works fairly well except for when there are multiple of one type of enemy with an area of effect damage attack (I still remember wiping my Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil game with a group of four nightwings casting cone of cold on the whole party at the same initiative count - 60d6 really hurts).
If this is something that bothers you, why don't you talk to your players outside of the game? Tell them that this is not the style of game you want and that this is something that hurts your enjoyment.
I think that would be better than a ghost or undead coming after them seeking vengeance, which could be perceived as the DM trying to "get" the players. Not that I disagree with that as a possible cool plot idea, but it is important to look at how it will be perceived and to be honest with them about how you view their actions with the NPC's body.
Aubec the Brazen Knight
