Princess Of Canada's page

It seems to me a system that tries to satisfy the envy...

You took the words right out of my mouth. This new system seems to pander to people who are poor sports.

Why exactly are we looking to bring more players like that to our respective tables or encouraging them to remain ?

From what I have heard about 2E I will definitely be staying away. If I wanted to play character with minimal customizability I will stick playing MMORPG games on my PC and Play Station.

The reason I picked Pathfinder over Dungeons and Dragons was because in Pathfinder my imagination was my limit now it seems someone else's imagination will be my limit if I subject myself to playing it.

Princess Of Canada wrote:

Its been said more than once the GM was merely pointing out the gravity of the situation - the player felt that nothing should be done to him and if something was to be sent it should be a lower or comparable CR level to himself and thought the whole thing a laughing matter.

I sort-of agree with the player on that. My PCs antagonise demon lords and evil gods all the time. I tend to assume that gods don't just smite people who annoy them, because that would upset the balance between the gods. If a boss villain of the campaign burns down a good god's church, the god doesn't send a squad of CR20 angels to kill him; he sends the PCs.

If I was GM and had a player like that I wanted to keep, I could easily say, "In order to protect yourself from the vengeance of Orcus, you must quickly find yourself a new patron deity. That way, he won't be able to strike at you directly without violating various infernal treaties."

(However, I wouldn't want to keep a player like that, because every other thing I've heard about him is a huge red flag.)

He was given another patron an enemy evil god of Orcus (Not even going to go into how he almost f&!+ed up that new alliance) - Like it was said before he was given many outs but still made choices that carried consequences and felt he should have none.

I honestly dont understand why people think the deity would instantly kill him or even take a special time to dispose of him with an army of outsiders.

The destruction of gods shrines happens all the damm time, often not by their followers ofc, but still happen all the time. Yet you dont see a GM comming around and proposing the paladin that destroyed the evil shrine should be worried about instantly being killed by the CR20 demon the deity had to just toss his away.

One can assume gods have a lot of stuff to deal with, like any high end enemy and they cant just turn around and deal with every single lunatic in a random planet in the entire material plane that annoyed them a little.

Now im not saying there shouldnt be repercussions for the act, but it makes no sense to me that one should consider he instantly dies to a army the god had laying around.

Its been said more than once the GM was merely pointing out the gravity of the situation - the player felt that nothing should be done to him and if something was to be sent it should be a lower or comparable CR level to himself and thought the whole thing a laughing matter.

The incident also occurred in Sigil where there are a lot of power NPC's.

Which sent the player into a long winded speech about how Orcus himself couldn't touch his character - thus the GM giving his response.

Said player is not a noob and seems to have it in his head the campaign is all about him and his character starring the rest of us.

I feel though, the old truism that "don't try to solve out of character problems in the game" holds here. Like this person, for whatever value he has had in the past as a friend, has some serious issues that make them not a good fit for a cooperative storytelling game. Until that player realizes this and decides that the point of the endeavor is to contribute positively to everybody's enjoyment rather than to play the lead in the "me show starring me" nothing you do to his character is really going to matter, not really.

Right on the nose

Princess Of Canada wrote:

And honestly that is just scratching the surface of everything that he's said and done. It gets worse.

I wasn't there. I don't know. You don't need to answer to me, and honestly, I don't want an answer from you.

That is kind of my point. I'm only hearing 1 side of the dispute. I'm sure that ousted player has feelings that are being hurt and hopes that are being disappointed. Most conflicts have at least 2 sides, and I think it would be wise to examine yours, or rather the GM to examine his--he was the one I was talking to--to see if there isn't anything for him--maybe you, too--to take away as a learning experience that will make you better gamers after your pain has healed.

ID-TheDemonOfElru wrote:

he was so obsessed with his character he literally got a tattoo of her, not a little one either.... he wanted to commission someone to draw his character but decided he can’t, when asked why he said he was “worried they would fall in love with his character” and he would end up violently assaulting them or worse.

From what you 2 are saying, though, it does sound like Dungeons and Dragons is not an inappropriate venue for examining his fantasy character. I feel bad for him. He's in love with an evil woman, apparently an evil woman who doesn't exist outside of the fantasy realm. But not existing is her best feature. Nothing is worse than falling in love with an evil person. I know a lot about this.

We welcomed him back multiple times after he would quit and we offered multiple outs for the mistakes he made in the game. One example being having his character being put under the protection of a rival god.

We even had an entire reboot so he could play the game more "wiser" in his words (Plus the sick player when he recovered felt he wouldn't mind a reboot either )

Again he has been a long time friend so we felt bound to give him a chance and to take his apologies at face value for a time.

I felt sorry for his personal life situation and that also factored in.

Yet we still ended up in the same spot where is actions weren't allowed to have consequences. He would act without thinking and be upset that there was a POTENTIAL unfavourable outcome.

E.g.

• His plan to turn a nymph into a vampire and leave two witnesses behind one being the Nymphs lover and excepting them not to get help. (He never did it he was talking about his plan to the GM and the GM merely pointed out there was the potential of acquiring a heel out of said plan - so he got mad over discussion )

• When the group was on a plane that was practically a museum and told not to touch or interfere with anything on pain of the said plane destroying you (Every time you transgressed there was 5% chance of the plane protecting itself ) - He did exactly just that not once , not twice but three times ! Putting the dice roll up to 15% before the group reemed him out to which his response was " I dont really care my character has an escape plan this only effects you guys." (He assumed magic worked normally there ) To which we all said well you are going To get us killed - He laughed said "Then you will roll new characters I guess and I will pick your bodies clean. More gold for me." (Yet he advocated for part cohesion yet didn't care he was gonna get us potentially killed )

Then he wondered why the group was mad.

Perhaps our fault was letting him come back at all. It fed into his ego and fed his obsession over his character.

When what he really needs is to get help.

And honestly that is just scratching the surface of everything that he's said and done. It gets worse.

ID-TheDemonOfElru wrote:

He had a massive complex, felt invulnerable, didn't like consequences or critiques of his actions or choice of words in our out of character.

So it's all him Scott, if you read the whole thread you would see that.

I was just reading your responses on this thread. If he can't share his character with you, he shouldn't be playing. If he can't abide by your rulings, he shouldn't be playing. If the party doesn't like him, he shouldn't be playing.

ID-TheDemonOfElru wrote:

So he happened to run into a particularly high level Bard who was also a prominent figure in this town in the game, who absolutely annhiliated his reputation in town and made him the laughing stock, even vendors and merchants didn’t want to do business with them. He couldn’t figure out why he was a social pariah for a long time.

He also had a horrible tendency to misuse the Diplomacy skill. He would want to roll Diplomacy off the bat meeting NPCs and then would insult or anger the NPC’s and think he can just roll it again to bump it back up. I explained that’s now how it works, it’s for initial meetings to set attitudes and then for requesting help or aid, you don’t get to readjust the attitude for several hours (or more depending on the situation as the skill explains).

But your group should examine itself: it sounds like your group has heaped some abuse on him. Was it really all him?

What abuse ?

I am a player in the game. You should read my post it explains a lot.

If you don't want to here it is in point form.

1. He criticized the other two players for not being power gamers.

2. One of the players was very, very, very ill for the better part of a year and didn't show up all the time due to treatment - the player in question took this as a lack of interest and lack of dedication. When in fact the guy was extremely ill and couldn't get out of bed !

3. He is a complete Megalomaniac - 110% Believes he could take Orcus.

4. He ran and hid when we fought the Beblith that was there to claim his butt and scoffed at the group for being upset at him for abandoning us. Claiming he could have done it himself he was just worried about his armour.

5. We didn't want to help him because We have no interest in pissing off a God. And remember he said he could handle Orcus. He was mad over the "principal" of the matter. He didn't care that he left us high and dry with Beblith.

6. Most importantly he said that he didn't want to get a picture done of his character because he was afraid said person would fall in love and he would have to hurt them or worse !

He is even getting a tattoo of said character for Christ sake.

Does that sound reasonable to you ?

He quit multiple times in order to try and get his way and he also played the friend card to play on all's sympathies but there is such a thing as going to far.

It people like him that give people who play pen and dice games a bad name and a bad stigma. So defending him is only hurting the game and the people who play it. He has some real issues.

He has played Pen and Dice for 20 years he knows better he is not some noob. It's been made very clear he is just in it to be destructive and controlling.

If I didn't just boot him, I would try to understand why he even wants to play. If his thrill is just causing trouble, boot. If he has other things he wants, it could be rewwarding to try. That character, though? Orcus shuts the door, and gives him a few dretches to fight. Then when those die, a vrock or two. Then more and more and more, until he goes down. But they don't kill him. They string him up before saying "say hello to Orcus" and tearing out his heart.

That's just me, of course.

Lol ♡

ID-TheDemonOfElru wrote:

Hi there everyone,

So to elaborate on the topic title. Actions and consequences, specifically player actions and consequences upon the world around them, what’s appropriate and differing opinions on the matter, I wanted to canvass yourselves and pose to you a situation that in my opinion as a DM, merited a severe and near instantaneous response from a powerful entity.

So here is the “situation” that arose, my response to it and I’m curious what people would have done in similar circumstances - my player believes I am being “heavy handed” and that they would be vindicated by replies found on here, though I would hope to find that others in fact agree with me.

The good news is that regardless of what actually happened some people will support you and others will not.

Couch things in the right way and there's people here who'd come out in favor of the GM's prerogative to tie up players and force them to listen to bad erotic fan fiction as punishment for... well, anything really.

ID-TheDemonOfElru wrote:

So the player in question, the same CE Teifling Bard/Cleric mentioned in another topic (Catch Free Efreeti Wishes?) had in this situation decided to wander into a major temple to Orcus (his diety) and decides to then and there, desecrate it by beheading the statue. Literally in front of his congregation and priests gathered there. He had an adamantine longsword to do the job and had the statues head off in a few rounds. He was chased by a bloodthirsty mob of followers and priests but had an escape plan to avoid that.

When I explained the sheer gravity of his choice to him, he felt Orcus should not be able to send anything more than “some low level plebs” at him, touting that since we were in the middle of an adventure for Lv 12 characters that Orcus be restricted in what CR of threats he could send against him.

Once you got to that point you'd already missed the point entirely by engaging with it and with him.

Generally speaking though, he was...

Hi,

I am one of four players of the group in question.

We all support the decision not to welcome this particular player back into the fold. The only thing that saved his butt for so long was that he was a long time friend.

He was insulting to two, players because they create characters for pleasure vs. power gaming.

One player had major health issues for the better part of a year and he accused the ill player of not taking the game seriously because he would sometime not show up.

A lot of context is missing - Part of which is when ID told the player that Orcus could basically send anything he wished he was addressing the players Megalomania because and I quote "I can beat Orcus no problem!" And yes he is FULLY serious when he said that. So ID was explaining the gravity of the situation. Eg. Sending Demon Armies.

To which myself and the other two players responded "Well if you truly believe that, when he sends the big bad after you we will sit out because we have no interest in incurring the wrath of a god."

This caused the player to lose his ever loving mind because we wouldn't help him. When we said "Oh but we thought you could handle Orcus himself. So why would you need our help anyways?"

To which his response was "Its the principle of the matter. If one of you found yourself in a similar situation I would help and for the sake of party cohesion we should." Then he started quoting Jason and the Argonauts saying the demi-gods in Greek mythology rose up against the gods and won (Said player was no where close to a demi-god)

Then we brought how said player saw no problem previously running away and hiding while the party almost died fighting the Beblith that was sent for him - he ran because he didn't want to get his armour ruined.

He was unapologetic and scoffed at the group telling them out of character he could have taken the Beblith we didn't have to get involved he could have done it on his own.

Full of vitriol and contradiction

All everyone did was accommodate and integrate.

And I don't know about you but when a player says that he would physically harm someone over his character (Views the character as himself and at the same time a separate living breathing person ) that's beyond just being incompatible.

We play on Saturdays during the evening and we are playing a modified version of Reign of Winter with e.g. Mythic content. Character options are open across the board.

Hi everyone,

Our group is looking for a new player. If you would like to join please share your interest. Or GM has over 18+ years of experience and has many of the Pathfinder Campaigns and has even created several of their own.

The party is primarily good and we typically game on the weekend. ONLINE through voice chat mediums.

Thank you :)

Well, right now there is no GM. And I hesitate to ask a random stranger to do a ton of work for someone they just met. Even if I gave no damns about the rights of other people and didn't appreciate the efforts a GM must put in just to get the bare minimum done, I doubt they would agree to it.

My husband is a GM and a member of this forum. Our group is currently back up to 5 players and he handles it very well

He also GMed a 7 player group for almost 10 years.

So he maybe able to give you advice and he might be able to help you. PM me if you're interested.

You don't need to use NPC's - Lets say you only had two players the game gives you the option to recruit NPCs in case you need to make up for a deficit that may exist due to having a small group. Or you know so you can make contacts.

Hi,

I was just wondering on people's thoughts on this one.

I'm a bit of a thespian I like to try immerse myself in my character and if "English " isn't their native tongue and they are speaking "English "I try to do an accent for what I feel their native tongue sounds like.

In this case I always thought in Irrisen people living more in the cities have a Russian sounding accent and those who are Ulfen and live tribes sound more Scandinavian.

What are people's thoughts on this ? What does the language sound like ?

Tarik Blackhands wrote:

vil wise, I enjoy Zon-Kuthon on the Hellraiser level and on interpreting him as providing some structure and support to those mentally and emotionally broken rather than being strictly the evil BDSM you usually associate with him.

Zon Kuthon is one of my favorites as well. When I ran Curse of the Crimson Throne, my players liked Laori so well, they based an entire new sect of his worship around her philosophy and made her the High Priestess. Everyone liked it so well, I left it as an established part of my table's version of the world. My Iron Gods party is 75% Laori-sect Kuthonites.

Anyway...

Calistria is probably my personal favorite deity in Golarion. She was the goddess that made me sit up and pay attention to Pathfinder as a campaign setting. I wasn't used to D&D settings having gods that made actual sense from an IRL perspective, but Golarion is actually really good about that.

Others in my Top Five would be Iomedae, Shelyn, Pharasma.

I really enjoy Pathfinder's take on gods as well - there are still some gods that make you for a very fine line but nothing like worshiping the old gods of 3.5 e.g. Pelor.

In Pathfinder?

Shelyn... just Shelyn. Why? If you want my half-joking answer, I would ask if you have ever seen a picture of her. If you want my more serious answer, it is because she supports things I personally like: art, music, and beauty... and also because she is hot.

Sarenrae is a close second because I am all about redemption and healing up until evil needs it's face smashed in, just like she is. "I will bring you peace... but it's going to hurt."

I agree with you on that one - no falling for the "Help me, help me Anakin." - Sentor Palpatine

I'm quite found of Desna. The worship of Desna ties in closely with one of my favourite groups of humans to play Varisians.

Hi,

I was just wondering who is everyone's favourite god or goddess!

Personally I have a strong predilection towards Sarenrae aka the Dawn Flower.

I like to play clerics and paladins and I think the rules for her followers align with my gaming style.

I especially like her for Paladins because the code for playing one doesn't require you to be lawful stupid. If you can't redeem them by word redeem them by the blade

The pirate captain rescinding his reward after the evil pc made her offer is a dick move. It's the GM getting the players to harp on the player's play style. That was pretty terrible and shows you guys were pushing him out of the player group.

This was after you failed to deal with his antics in character. She should be dead.

Instead you worried about his out of character response and didn't give him a chance to act like an adult.

I have little doubt it would have all ended the same way (him quitting after not getting his way), but there was severe levels of immaturity from everyone.

He really should have left the group because you guys were being antagonistic to him at the end. You lost all moral highground and became a toxic group to that player.

I'm only giving him a pass his actions because you guys never handled it correctly. His character never suffered for her actions until the GM goaded the PCs to effectively murder her.

You all should feel shame for your actions.

Have you read anything ? I said we let him play the way he wanted but he was unwilling to accept consequences and he basically blew up for our characters not putting up with his shit or calling him out on it.

So effectively we weren't allowed to do anything but praise or forgive his character for putting us in mortal danger on many occassions.

It lead to him fighting a lot with us out of character.

So if anyone was "harping" on players styles it was him.

ID-TheDemonOfElru wrote:

The group is heavily good except for the Tiefling player who regardless of any game has to play the most evil characters around (they will not play even neutral characters)

IMHO, You should start your next session off and basically present to your players that it's time for the "Blaze of Glory Session". Tell them you're not having fun trying to deal with how to manage the party of good characters along side the single evil character, so you have several options to present them.

1: The good Characters can finally rise up and put down the evil character in a Blaze of Glory. (and find a replacement good/neutral companion)

2: The Evil character can assassinate the good characters and walk out in a Blaze of Glory. (to find new evil companions)

3: The party can remain together and some of their 'allies' that have been wronged band together and put down the band of adventurers (protecting this clearly evil character) in a Blaze of Glory. (Ultimately end the campaign and start a new one with rules restricting opposed alignments, and possibly even limiting power gaming at GM discretion)

4: If none of the above are acceptable then maybe it's just time for all of you to find something else to do while hanging out with your friends.

We weren't going to help him with the minion Orcus was going to send - I mean why would we want to piss off a greater god by helping? Besides he was very cocky about his chances and didn't take the threat seriously which ticked us off further.

He was mad that we wouldn't help. Again we would most definitely be put on the s!#$ list of a greater god if we helped.

But when he MIGHT have lost his armour in a fight he ran and hid and I almost had to roll up a character because of his inaction. (This happened during our first big battle )

Hi,

Just wanted to put my two cents in here as ID is my GM and he is a great one at that.

We all love his creativity and his willingness to let us be who we want to be. So those who are suggesting it thay is a GM problem it is DEFINITELY NOT !

The whole relationship with offending party is very nuanced and it's also private - So I can see how it can be confusing to an outsider looking in without divulging the particulars of our personal lives which ISN'T up for discussion.

The player in question was most certainly the problem. I am the Paladin and that means I butted heads with him the most.

The "evil" character's player takes everything very personally so these disagreements bled into real life and I actually spent a good chunk of my evening trying to get through to him.

I told him " When your character does something I don't like I address it in character and roll with the punches - I can't make you behave how your character wouldn't behave - But behaviours have consequence. You think you should be free of them and we should just accept it just because.

When my character or another player character reacts the way their character would you get mad and claim they are being heavy handed and have a fit and basically tell us how we should be playing our characters. We want you to afford us the same respect we give you."

Long story short the converstation didn't fare well and he quit.

He wanted his way or no way and we told him we are sorry he felt that way.

The group size is not a problem to be honest. That part is just our GM being a little paranoid we appreicate the hard decisions and hard work he put into all this. Being the boss is a heavy burden and you can feel it weighing down more heavily on certain days especially when it involves dealing with a 18 year friendship. I Can't wait for this weekend :)

Thank you Joana for clearing that up.

I have read that they don't have facial hair, but I just wanted to be sure if they did or didn't.

If anyone in my gaming group tries to hit on my character and they are an elf I generally rebuff them, because something about a completely hairless guy is such a turn off.

I understand people are going to tell me while in "your universe you can have elves with facial hair if you want," but are all elves in Golarion hairless in every way?

A mage capable of using Disintegrate with Improved Critical is a deadly foe indeed (20th level caster deals 40d6 damage, on a critical 80d6....yeah (thats a range of 80 to 480 points of damage, with a average at 3.5 per die giving 280 points of damage)). Sure you get a save, thats the only thing stopping this spell being stupidly broken...

Scorching Ray is a good candidate, 4d6 fire damage, firing one or more at a time depending on caster level, with a 10% chance of a critical per roll (at 19-20's if you allow Improved Critical).

Personally I allow spellcasters to take Improved Critical (Touch) or Improved Critical (Ray), since alot of spells a Mage casts dont require attack rolls.

A fighter can take Improved Critical for a specific weapon, which is NO different than Rays/Touch Attacks, which is very specific.

One problem....

Only Spellike abilities need Concentration tests, thats always been the case when your grappled, etc.

Supernatural abilities have NEVER required Concentration tests since their inception in 3.0 to Pathfinder, so yes, the Liche can deliver a touch attack (since natural attacks are LIGHT weapons and legitimately allowed in a grapple in lieu of making a Grapple test to free yourself) to the monk. Not to mention Supcernatural abilities DONT have Caster Level's, though they are supressed in Anti-Magic areas (as is supernatural forms of Damage Reduction such as DR 5/Good and so forth).

Personally, I always go with the rule that Magic Weapons have higher hardness and HP than normal weapons (aside from modifiers for Special Materials), and anything/anyone can sunder them. Thats how it was intended. Otherwise a STR 27 Giant couldnt break a measly +1 Sword (which they can easily accomplish).

Wall of Thorns is overpowered by a mile, and ambigiously worded (its a spell but deals real physical damage, I personally treat it as Piercing damage that bypasses Magic DR which is how its intended I am sure...since no other spells deal physical damage beyond Ice Storm (which deals COLD and Bludgeoning, and the Bludgeoning is mitigated by DR of the creature so should Wall of Thorns since both spells deal physical damage).

Protection From Evil is pretty sweet, gives a blanket protection versus evil outsiders and enchantment effects (though I personally believe that should only apply to enchantment effects originating from Evil beings/outsiders).

Blindness is so much more useful than Deafness, a real classic save-or-suck spell that can end encounters before they really begin.

Dominate Person/Monster...a absolutely loyal minion for DAYS at a time?, that'll do ANY unreasonable or life threatening request without complaint?, sign me up.

Cloudkill, deadly poisonous cloud that automatically kills all low HD creatures and slightly higher level creatures get a save or die?, check. Deal Con damage to stronger foes who remain in the radius every round?, check. Pretty awesome spell all around.

Solid Fog is pretty awesome, controls a battlefield really good and limits perception. This'll even stop a ship in its tracks if cast on a seagoing vessel, and not to mention if your Rogue pal set up a snare with bells before you cast it, you sit back wait for the chime and let loose with AOE spells into the effected area knowing somethings there. If you dont have a Rogue buddy?, then cast an Alarm spell, does the same thing...

Hold Person/Monster...always been a killer, since 2nd Edition, sure you get to save every round but sometimes all it takes is one Coup De Gras or a Rogue to pincushion you.

Sleep is pretty deadly, puts creatures to sleep allowing you to finish them off easily.

Color Spray is deadly, always has been, delivers a medley of effects and is useful for several levels.

Reverse Gravity is a killer too, holds foes aloft or throws them into the air and when the spell is dismissed/expires, drops them from a great height.

Disintegrate has always been deadly, 2d6 per caster level (40d6 max) with 5d6 on a successful save?, anything this hits is dust (literally) making it the highest damage deadling spell in the game.

Scorching Ray deadling 4d6 at low levels with additional rays every couple of levels that you get it?, get yourself some Precision Damage to go with it on the side and your laughing.

Blur, against anyone else a 20% miss chance doesnt do much, but this one spell more or less completely shuts down ANY Precision Damage character (Rogue, Shadowdancer, Assassin, etc).

Mirror Image is a classic, creates illusionary copies of the caster...and if you AOE them with a fireball?, well the images all remain (just they might look crispy since the mage will likely take some damage without Evasion and the images all copy him in likeness through the casting)...you dont know which is the right one. Unless the images are all bunched together, even a Great Cleave isnt going to take care of them all.

Ray Of Enfeeblement inflicts a penalty to a stat even on a successful save, this can severely cripple a 2 handed opponent or opponent who relies on high STR even with a decent roll thats halved.

Mind Blank...sure its 8th level, but theres NO reason spellcasters shouldnt be casting this every day when they get access to it. Perhaps one of the best spells out there - blanket immunity to scrying/divination and massive bonuses to mind effecting spells and effects, and it lasts for 24 hours.

Silence is a classic...cast it on a Rogue whos sneaking up on some sleeping foes, and nobodys ever going to wake up and hear their friends gurgling cries in the night as theyre picked off one at a time. Ontop of that, give this to a Monk who likes to grapple or a Fighter thats good at shutting down Mages and have them close to melee range and its likely all over for the Mage (I havent seen many mages bother with Silent Spell)

Enervation/Energy Drain, these behemoths can rob a character blind of attack bonuses, saves and skill bonuses, as well as access to higher level spells they may have previously memorised.

Feeblemind is a mage-killer, most Mages might have this prepared incase they go up against another spellcaster, and it effectively turns the foe into drooling animal that can still act and attack but importantly robs them of their spells.

Greater Invisibility deserves a mention, in the hands of any character this spell is uber deadly, in a Rogues hands triply so as each and every attack they make for the duration of the spell is a Sneak Attack (excluding Blindsight and so forth).

Darkness can be a Rogue stopper for one or more people, especially if they havent got Darkvision from some source, in 3.5 it still gave 20% concealment even if you had Darkvision, though I am sure thats been fixed in Pathfinder...but still, no Darkvision means no Sneak Attack.

Dimensional Anchor...use this and the BBEG is going to have to find some ingenious way outside of Teleport/Dimension Door to get away (with no saving throw its a true winner). And in my experience...most bad guys especially at higher levels depend on Teleport in particular (especially Evil Outsider BBEG's) to get away to live to fight another day.

Summon Monster/Unseen Servant/Animate Objects/Animate Dead all fall under the 'expendable plebian' category, used for all manner of (well thought out) useful tasks....trap finding, slowing down pursuers, helping your Rogue buddy get a flanker, swarming the battlefield with chaff to control the flow of battle and so on. Every spellcaster should have access to some or all of these spells.

Levitate/Fly may not be in themselves deadly, but in an open area and your opponents a beast or an opponent without ranged attacks?, just sit back, munch some popcorn and shoot some fish in a barrel (sure some foes will be smart enough to try and run off or hide, if theres more than one of you doing this trick though then at least one of you are going to get an attack every round).

Black Tentacles are always a classic, good for controlling a battlefield (though the damage is pretty meagre) through grappling anything that comes near. Just sit back and let the ranged attacks go against snared foes.

Entangle is similar to Black Tentacles in its battlefield controlling operations, but you need some vegetation to make it work...still, at low levels, I have seen this put an end to most bad guys plans to charge you or to capture/ensnare several of their minions, plus moving through an effected area is VERY difficult.

Searing Light is one of few decent Cleric attack spells, and wow, does it bust up Undead and Evil Outsiders good. Any cleric worth their salt should always have at least ONE of these prepared by level 5.

Bestow Curse is pretty deadly (penalty to a stat, 50% miss chance with every attack, etc or whatever you choose) though its easy to remove if you have access to a 5th level Cleric. It can still be a game changer/winner though if you pull it off.

Thats about all I can think of for now...

Easiest method to deal with it - if hes only doing one attack in a round and he doesnt kill the significant bad guy?, then tap a Potion Of Blur or use a spell of the same name. That meagre 20% miss chance robs the Shadowdancer blind. Or better yet, if you have Darkvision it negates any and all shadows you see (they simply do not exist to your vision), you see things as if in perfect illumination - in that instance the Shadowdancer will need to use cover (which they wouldnt otherwise have to do, but its the only way around hiding versus a Darkvision using foe).

You cant logically hide behind the shadow of a kite or marble, unless it was of a decent size, its common sense after all that you need a shadow of at least decent size to use the ability in (such as a shadow thats at least one size category smaller than yourself at the very most but even then thats stretching it).

I allow characters with HiPS to use any decent size shadow for this purpose, but if they tried to use it with rolling a marble down a well lit corridor or by flying a kite overhead?, i'd let him think it was working (after all a Rogue doesnt automatically KNOW when hes been spotted, he still thinks hes hidden even with a bad Stealth roll, the character isnt aware of 'how well' theyre hidden by the RAW, theyre dependant entirely on the observer (hence why a poorly hidden character can still surprise and sneak attack a character who botched a perception test)) and then when he thinks hes hidden I'd have an Ogre or some other large monster rip his arms out of his sockets and beat him to death with them (or some other grisly fate).

The Libra Mortis cites several examples of mindless undead acting under a base volition/instinct.

An example adventure hook PG 134, 'Several Zombies left over from an evil clerics army of undead have wandered too close to a village of innocents'
- This explains that the undead are uncontrolled, have wandered by happenstance close to the aforementioned 'town' and are going to attack the village if they wander close enough to it.

And for Tactics for mindless undead such as Skeletons and Zombies, on Page 137.

"As an unintelligent creature, a skeleton doesnt have any faculty to plan or use strategy. It doesnt try to flank opponents, or move past armored fighters to attack unarmored wizards. It merely follows the simple command given it by its master (typically along the lines of 'kill anyone who enters this room') until destroyed or its targets disappear from view. A skeleton ignores foes it cant see, and has no ability to discern between vulnerable foes and ones resistant to its attacks.
ROUND 1 = Charge toward the nearest foe, attacking if within reach.
ROUND 2+ = Attack the nearest foe

"Like the Skeleton, the Zombie doesnt employ much in the way of tactics. Assuming their master hasnt given them some other command, most zombies simply attack any visible foe. Zombies ignore invisible creatures and lack the intelligence to recognise when their attacks are useless. A zombie fighting an enemy with displacement or damage reduction, for instance, just keeps flailing away even when if its attacks fail to injure the target. If its target drops or dissapears, it moves on to the next available foe."
ROUND 1 = Charge toward the nearest foe, attacking if within reach.
ROUND 2+ = Attack the nearest foe.

Both entries strongly suggest mindless undead attack anything they view as an enemy on sight, and dont give up until they or their target is slain. Since Zombies and Skeletons are very similar in mindset and strategy they would respond to stimuli the same way.

Also, in 3.0/3.5 Skeletons and Zombies are still Neutral Evil alignment, and the book goes on to explain on Page 12 onward the following...

"SENTIENCE

The ability to think is a quality the vast bulk of undead do not possess. Mindless undead merely respond to preset commands OR STIMULI, driven by nothing other than the energy that animates them. These undead have no outlook, they are robbed of thought. They are nearly mechanical in their actions, and often those actions are as easy to anticipate as the revolution of a water wheel.
On the other hand, sometimes intelligent undead are agents of an intelligent master, wether undead or merely malign. Thus even mindless undead may proove to be surprising foes, if their positions and responses to a given situation are properly cocordinated and prepared. Only sentient undead have the luxury of possessing an outlook and a comprehensible psycological state"

And on the subject of why most undead regardless of their nature are "Evil", Page 12.

"Those creatures fanatical enough to actually seek undeath strive to escape the bonds of mortality and thereby gain a term of existance far beyond their natural life spans. Such mortals often presume that this gift of extended life comes without a price. They hope that by having no temporal limits on their life spans, they will be able to accomplish all their dreams and visions.

The living spend their time living life and gathering experience, thereby shaping their personalities and adjusting to the world as it changes around them. In contrast, the undead mind sees the passage of time very differently. Undead exist and do not life. Life means change, and while undead endure over time and learn new facts, they rarely change of appreciate new paradigms. Aside from a rare few exceptions, and undead's outlook remains stagnant over the decades, or centuries, of its existance, despite new experiences and new situations they encounter.

This inflexible mental nature is the reason why many undead seem insane. In fact, they merely be operating with goals and aspirations that are slightly out of step with the present world. Unfortunately, like any ambition that cannot be swayed by reason or tempered by changing cirumstances, the goals of the stubborn immortal undead become a cankerous evil that can only be exised. While a living creature may accept compramise when life hands it a new challenge, undead can rarely do anything other than what they have always done"

This explains that even while a good character can be turned undead, what practices and behaviours they did when living/freshly turned can be considered inhuman and alien many years later, and their acts be 'evil' though they think what theyre doing is perfectly logical or acceptable.

Princess Of Canada wrote:

Only problem with that is since 3.0/3.5 and now Pathfinder, mindless undead like Skeletons and Zombies are Neutral Evil alignment, and Zombies in their own entry are explained to wander aimlessly when uncontrolled (causing them to kill any living thing they encounter or get destroyed in the process).

Mindless undead lack any self-preservation skills, they wont flee if they are being killed, its kill or be killed.

Necromancy like Demonology are some of the blackest forms of magic, they've been portrayed that way in many mediums (Conan, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, etc) and have been this way in 3.0/3.5 and even since 1st and 2nd Edition D&D.

Or play 3.5 and argue since 3.5 entry doesn't have zombies/Skeletons wandering aimlessly when uncontrolled.

Assumingly, that was PF's way of trying to explain away why they are evil.
And Conan was restored to life by Necromancy (1st movie). He certainly didn't protray them as that bad (only dangerous as they had to fight the spirits to restore him to lfe).

Actually, there are many published adventures that feature wandering, uncontrolled groups of Zombies or Skeletons as random encounters. No controller by your logic should have them stand around like hat stands for adventurers to push over and hang their hats on.

Actually, if you play 3.0/3.5, read Libra Mortis, it supercedes anything in the Monster Manual with regards to undead behaviours and mindless undead DO wander if their controller is slain (not when hes asleep, only when the controller is actually dead).

In Pathfinder, mindless undead are Neutral Evil, they may not have a conscience or think of anything in particular, but they act with slight malice due to their evil nature. Vermin on the other hand are neutral and act as NATURAL LAWS dictate they should, Undead on the other hand obey a SUPERNATURAL set of laws that see them not needing to eat, drink, sleep or breathe. They are mindless shells fuelled with malignant negative energy that drives them to quench sources of positive energy they encounter such as living beings.

Not to mention the fact that in Conan, magic of that sort is highly dangerous...what was the cost of his life returned to him?, Valeria pledged her life to the spirits and that is why the fates chose her to die in the movie. She gave her life through supernatural, sinister means (the spirits were not kind or benevolent - they tried to attack and steal him away) to see her love returned to her.

I've been over this subject in the past to no avail...there are actually TWO entries regarding Spell-like Abiltiies/Spells and Counterspelling in the main book that conflict directly with one another, with one being a hold-over from 3.5 and the other seems to be an intentional change.

Entry mentioned on Page 221 of the Core Pathfinder Rulebook.

Spellike Abilities (Sp)

Usually a spellike ability works just like the spell of that name. A spelllike ability has no verbal, somantic or material components, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally. Armor never affects a spellike ability's use, even if the ability resembles an arcane spell with a somantic component.
A spellike ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless otherwise noted in the ability or the spells description. In all other ways, the spellike ability functions just like a spell.
Spellike abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do no function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated. Spellike abilities cannot be used to counterspell or can they be counterspelled.
Some creatures actually cast arcane spells as sorcerors do, using components when required. Some creatures have both spellike abilities and actual spellcasting power.

NOW EVEN MORE CONFUSING... (And is found on the SRD as well)

Entry found for Spellike Abilities (Sp) on Page 554 of the Core Pathfinder Rulebook.

Spell-Like Abilities (Sp): Spell-like abilities, as the name implies, are magical abilities that are very much like spells. Spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance and dispel magic. They do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field). Spell-like abilities can be dispelled and counterspelled as normal[.

Now I am officially confused, two entries contradict one another in Pathfinders main rulebook...theres a problem right there.

Which is the right one?, there has been no official response yet but the SRD supports the second (Spell-like Abilities can be Counterspelled) entry.

A D&D official 3.5 sourcebook called Exemplars Of Evil explains how BBEG's get cohorts and minions, its quite different than the Leadership feat.

For one, a BBEG would get 1-3 Cohorts (each consecutively two levels lower than the last, ranked in order of seniority, calculated with vastly different adjustments than normal Leadership) and minions are not modified by being aloof or cruel as normal with Leadership.

Its quite an interesting (but optional) take on how to give bad guys minions. I use it all the time, it even helps you build villains with long term plans and cohorts and gives you five examples at different levels of power who have their HQ's all mapped and described.

My general approach in 3.5 was to take advantage of subtypes. The magic spell Animate Dead has the evil descriptor. Skeletons and Zombies are inherently mindless automatons, so they're incapable of the moral and ethical choices necessary for an alignment. So they should be neutral. If you really want to represent the [Evil] tag of the spell and let 3.5 paladins smite them, the solution is that skeletons and zombies get the [Evil] tag, too. It's possible to have a creature with an alignment different from their subtype, but this still allows them to detect as evil and be smitable from the gamist perspective of the paladin. This solves the dichotomy and works the same mechanically.

What's frustrating about this argument for me is that people are now bandying about the "zombies and skeletons rampage whenever they're on their 15 minute break" argument as if it's been fact for more than the time it's been since the Bestiary was released. It hasn't been. It was made up to justify the Evil alignment that these undead were given in 3.5 by the guys writing PF who didn't want to go against backwards compatibility by changing the alignment back to its pre-3.5 status. It's an odd decision that at least makes sense within certain contexts, but people are right in pointing out that it is inconsistent with a large amount of the game's assumptions.

Frankly, I'll be ignoring it and going with subtypes, if I don't decide to remove the alignment tag from Animate Dead as well.

Oddly enough, though - Devilkiller's right that there is no in-game rule about what an alignment descriptor spell does, aside from make it off-limits to a divine caster. An Evil arcanist can use Summon Monster to summon a Couatl (giving the spell the Good descriptor), but that doesn't mean he's doing good. Especially if he orders the Couatl to slaughter an orphanage just for kicks (and, as a summoned monster, the Couatl pretty much has to do it, muwahahaha). Just because you've cast a spell with an alignment, there's no actual...

Only problem with that is since 3.0/3.5 and now Pathfinder, mindless undead like Skeletons and Zombies are Neutral Evil alignment, and Zombies in their own entry are explained to wander aimlessly when uncontrolled (causing them to kill any living thing they encounter or get destroyed in the process).

Mindless undead lack any self-preservation skills, they wont flee if they are being killed, its kill or be killed.

Necromancy like Demonology are some of the blackest forms of magic, they've been portrayed that way in many mediums (Conan, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, etc) and have been this way in 3.0/3.5 and even since 1st and 2nd Edition D&D.

If you want a zombie or skeleton to be NEUTRAL, then find a way of using ANIMATE OBJECT instead on the remains, for animated objects are neutral as is the spell.

Not to mention that by creating Undead your bringing negative energy into a positive dominant enviroment. Due to the duality of Negative/Positive energy's innate relationship of destroying and disrupting one another, it only makes sense that mindless undead act under the simplest instincts (much like a insects since they too have the "Mindless" traits...otherwise they too would do nothing and thus go extinct) but are driven to kill sources of positive energy that are of a certain concentration that 'registers' to them (thusly why you dont see undead killing fleas or potted plants).
To solidify that fact, the Libra Mortis explains how undead physiology works, and there it explains that even mindless undead while their behaviors differ, when faced with significant sources of positive energy they try to extinguish it.

3.0/3.5 was phenomenally broken with regards to characters that broke the system, Pathfinder at least has taken steps to correct this somewhat.

Sure its not perfect, but its our system.

Frankly, its more cohesive than it used to be, and characters that were suboptimal choices now have more potential.

Sure some people think too many choices can be a bad thing when it comes to options.

But consider that in 3.0/3.5 there was dozens of alternative class features in virtually every official sourcebook they released (Dungeonscape, etc) and technically, that makes 3.5 WORSE in terms of too many options if thats a problem for players.

But the systems much more refined than it used to be, plus with the new errata that was released recently, we're already in the process of fine tuning things.

Lathiira wrote:

Followers, however, are generally flimsy. I wouldn't count them, as they are seldom even close to the level of the Leader. They're often a nuisance in battle, though good tactics and judicious use of terrain can make them more threatening, thus giving you an excuse to give out a little XP for them.

Try facing 20 level 1 enchanters who have the improved initiative feat and a wand of fireball.

Can you say surprise round massacre?

An expensive tactic....that could easily backfire (literally).

Someone who caught wind of 20 poorly hidden Level 1 Enchanters could catch them all nicely with an AoE effect or two depending on their spacing, given their poor HP they wouldnt even bother to roll saving throws.

If someone won that fight, they'd get bags full of partially charged Wands Of Fireball, which is an expensive setback for your BBEG.

Otherwise, a good idea depending who theyre up against.

Princess Of Canada wrote:

And FYI, the only really "Good" undead is Deathless from the Book Of Exalted Deeds, these creatures are not bound into service and can leave their vessels when they wish, and they are animated by positive not negative energy.

That's a pretty thin reed to base an argument on, especially since demi-liches can also leave their vessels when they want, are in fact usually not in residence, and were doing this shtick for three and a half editions before "deathless" were even invented.

And the whole "positive energy" business is irrelevant to Pathfinder anyway because that bit from Eberron and the BoED wasn't released to the SRD.

And following the Pathfinder RAW, you should also note that ghosts, while still animated by negative energy like the rest of the Pathfinder undead crew, can be any alignment.

As for vampires being naughty or nice, that greatly depends on the world that the DM is running and whether the thirst for blood can be denied or if the story bible for the world makes all vampires automatically fall into a frenzy reminiscent of the final scene of Reefer Madness or an addled crack ho from an '80s anti-drug PSA. If you're running the later sort of world, then yeah, vampires are automatically evil or at least doomed to be so, but that's not bragging rights for winning an argument; that's just the DM running the orbital mind control lasers for their world and enforcing alignments.

In other words, if I say all undead are automatically Evil for my world, or Eeeeeevil!, then fine, they are. That's Rule 0.

But by the same token, I and many other DMs can Rule 0 a more grey and nuanced morality for our worlds if we want, and since Rule 0 is part of the RAW, well, it's not like we're violating it.

Still, Necromancers have to get their lackeys from somewhere, wether they kill people themselves or dig up some remains, they are desecrating the remains and animating them.

It should be noted that Skeletons and Zombies while 'mindless' are still Neutral Evil, which implies unlike Vermin (who are also 'mindless' but neutral), that Undead intrinsically apart from very rare exceptions are Evil.

And yes, even a Ghost can be Good alignment...but does it get bleached by positive energy?, does it have horrific undead powers?, yes on both counts. While its diplomatically possible to negociate with a Ghost (for the purposes of laying it to rest), more often than not they will be either avoided or attacked depending know Knowledgeable people are. Not to mention Ghosts died in some horrific manner usually, so they look more often than not...mutilated or suchlike, and D&D characters and NPC's alike are oh so quick to act based on appearances.

I am well aware Pathfinder is more 'greyer' than D&D used to be, but Animate Dead is a Evil spell, though can houserule it anyway you want. It creates Neutral Evil, unliving creatures that cant be reasoned with or bargained with whose only job is to kill or be killed mindlessly.

Not to mention that a passing Evil Cleric can 'steal' your undead away with a Channel Test and set them upon you and your comrades, or if you fall in battle, your now uncontrolled minions will put you out of your misery if your unconcious/bleeding out and attack your companions too.

Not to mention Necromancers dont care about their expendable skeletons/zombies really, and move on oh so quickly to make more as soon as some fall while the remains of the former minions are left to rot where they fell.

Plus, Necromancy of that sort is illegal in most settings, otherwise you'd see Necromancers and their pets in the streets. You dont though, because people would get their pitchforks and torches if they seen that, not to mention the towns Clerics and Paladins as well as guards and so forth would be on you like a bad rash looking to string you up on a noose (and rightly so).

Thanks Majuba. ^^

Regardless, the vast majority of characters and civilisations in Pathfinder consider Necromancy of this sort illegal and immoral, and I doubt Paizo are going to remove the Evil descriptor on the spell anytime soon.

Consider this - when a player uses Summon Monster to summon a Fiendish (Whatever), or to summon an Evil creature, the spell ITSELF gains the Evil descriptor (likewise, a Celestial creature or Good aligned creature causes the spell to gain the Good descriptor).

Not to mention that Skeletons and Zombies are Neutral Evil too in Pathfinder.

This isnt a question of how 'moral' messing with the bodies of the dead is, its simply down to the fact the spell itself, like a Summon Monster spell that summons an Evil outsider of some sort, are both irrevocably Evil.

Mages dont wander the street with their summon monsters, undead minions and so forth taggling along, mingling with the unwashed masses in a campaign. Hell, even Celestial creatures dont tag along with their masters, because commonfolk would point at and get concerned about some weird looking glowing creature walking around (A passing cleric or paladin could alleviate the public fears but its NOT common knowledge to most NPC's if they dont have the Knowledge skill that is required).

Wether people like it or not, the act of channeling negative energy into a creatures dead shell, animating it and then controlling it is bad enough...but nobody really asks where the necromancer suddenly got his 30 new Skeletons/Zombies (for example) that he suddenly walks into a dungeon with. (Likely where a large concentration of bodies can be found, such as a village graveyard, desecrating the remains of ALOT of people en mass).

Plus Necromancers dont really care for their pawns that much, they are meatshields to absorb some hits (which thereby desecrates the remains). And what happens to the desecrated remains of these fallen undead?, 99% of the time they are left to rot where they fell and the Necromancer moves on to animate something else.

An attitude like that to peoples remains being 'expendable' is not the traits of a Good aligned character.

And FYI, the only really "Good" undead is Deathless from the Book Of Exalted Deeds, these creatures are not bound into service and can leave their vessels when they wish, and they are animated by positive not negative energy.

As for the physical experience of an Outsider over an Undead being?

Outsiders dont HAVE to eat or drink, they can do so if they wish for the pleasure of it and they never go hungry (no maddening insanity there)
Some undead HAVE to eat, Vampires and so forth and I am sure if any of us woke up suddenly craving someones blood we would have a hard time justifying not just eating someone (no veggie vampires please). A character turned into a Vampire (even if they were good in life), is going to succumb to the hunger eventually and eat someone, slip into remorse and so forth. Unless they do the noble thing and end their own life, the act of continually preying on other good people WILL gain you corruption eventually and soon you'll justify eating Joe Bob because you dont have any rats or cows around to bleed and it allows you to 'spread' the greater good you think your still doing...then it becomes easier to justify doing it again, and again....

Undead experience most sensations (Libra Mortis explains for most undead these are phantom sensations, akin to being half numb when they touch something, etc.), but most can see and hear perfectly. Oh yes...and when 'living' people discover you and try to put you out your misery?...your not going to have time to be diplomatic, its you or them, and in the act of self preservation 'Good' people turned Undead will kill a few in their time, and who knows, might even turn hateful and vengeful towards the living in general because their existance is a constantly hostile one.

Not to mention that a passing Evil Cleric can just control you and make you do horrible things against your wishes...
..."Attack those Villagers!" says the Cleric, and you go in no better than a Dominated plebian and attack and kill. Should you win, you have the luxury of watching your master pick at their remains and possibly even animate more bodies while you stand by helplessly, a tool of their evil. And such acts, even though against your will, are STILL evil, you could always put yourself out of your misery and do the living world a favor.

Outsiders of any variety have the whole banquet of sensations and emotions to enjoy, they have what mortals enjoy and so much more, they will never starve or die of thirst and some dont even need to sleep (but can do so if they wish).

When someone casts Animate Dead they are disturbing the remains of a once living creature (an immoral act), and in the vast majority of cases these "minions" are sent into battle simply to absorb blows (thereby desecrating the remains), and its a well known fact Necromancers frequently go through countless swarms of these 'expendable' pawns in their lifetimes, but seldom is the question asked of WHERE the bodies would come from...

Necromancers being practical people, would go to the largest concentration of bodies they could find (graveyards and so forth) where the dead have been peacefully interred.

Consider also that in a Desecrated/Unhallowed area, undead created within the confines of these areas are tougher than their usual counterparts (an evil spell bolstering another evil spell).

Its not the spell itself inasmuch that is Evil, its the implications of its use (it messes with the remains of the dead, binds the shells of once living beings into servitude who ultimately get destroyed sooner or later desecrating those remains further).

Most societies dont tolerate Undead in any form, in virtually every setting I have seen (you dont see obviously undead openly walking through the street among living people with people acting like its an everyday thing). Shucks, even a Mage walking though a street with some kind of summoned minion following behind him is going to get alot of strange looks and alot of whispers behind his back because of his Outsider pal thats tagging along for example.

Regardless of how some people might try to spin it, a Necromancer who dies leaves his Undead Entourage behind....now what happens with these 'pets'?, those with a nugget of sentience (Ghouls, Shadows, etc) will venture off and start killing any living thing they come across by whatever means is craftiest. Skeletons and Zombies fill the 'Mindless' category, but Zombies in particular will wander and if they encounter living creatures they attack relentlessly. Skeletons may stand still at the point they were last commanded, but should anything happen upon THEM the Skeletons will attack.

Skeletons and Zombies still have some semblance of instinct, and will react in self defense against non-living foes, but if they sense a creature is living (while uncontrolled) it is SHOWN in Pathfinder they can and DO attack those that cross their path...otherwise why else would they bother to feature in countless undead encounter tables?

When a Mage dies, their summon monsters vanish because the spell lasts rounds per level with no real consequences for the summon in question (it cant really die), so the mages companions dont have any additional worries there. But with a Necromancer they do, because his 'pets' will attack them when he falls.

And lastly and most importantly...you cant reason with Skeletons and Zombies period, they dont have any self preservation instinct, they fight until destroyed. But it is possible to reason with other intelligent undead (albeit that would be difficult, there are rules for this in the Libra Mortis about using Diplomacy vs Undead to avoid conflict), but even then it is a one shot deal (the undead, being evil, inevitably regret not taking the opportunity to devour/destroy their prey and resume the hunt once more).

Not to mention the existance of being Undead is different than that of being an Outsider, you can eat, drink, sleep, experience sensations, and so much more. As an Undead ALL you do is exist, you dont sleep, you dont really eat (unless your a Ghoul or Vampire, etc), you just exist.

Its not only to do with morals, its FACT within Pathfinder few to little civilisations in the Pathfinder setting TOLERATE Undead.

Its a simple fact, Necromancer KNOWS he cant take his mob of skeletons and zombies into town...why?, because he'd have every cleric and paladin in the area after them backed up by an angry mob.

People can try and justify that animating the deceased remains for non-evil purposes however they wish, but the fact is, your animating a creatures remains and desecrating the corpse by doing so. Not to mention the fact that said body will be sent into battle and be likely destroyed (tantramount to desecrating/mutilating the remains yourself). I'd be VERY surprised if a Good alignment party would tolerate someone among them running around raising a mob of skeletons and zombies without asking WHERE the bodies came from (local village's cemetary, etc). Its not as simple as 'finding some laying around', theres every chance your going to have to get some dug up. In lieu of that, you go out and kill some monsters yourself and raise their remains. (Sure, the Orc's surviving family isnt going to curse your name because you turned their son/father/etc into a zombie mess that got destroyed five minutes later).

At the end of the day, unless your in a undead tolerant society (which 99% of the pathfinder campaign setting is NOT), it tells you how people percieve and relate to undead. I am sure any wandering undead would get destroyed if he villagers could muster enough burning torches and pitchforks, as would he errant necromancer making liberal use of the towns graveyard to 'replenish his forces'. Even if he didnt get the corpses from the graveyard, 99% of NPC's will not tolerate undead period. Its a simple fact.

And because undead are not accepted or allowed in most places, that tells you the practice of necromancy is an underground one, which in itself implies its either illegal (most likely), immoral (desecrating the remains of once living creatures) or downright evil (the vast majority of necromancers are infact evil, and thus the label and stigma of their act is imprinted on every other necromancer out there...who have to deal with the perception everyone has of them).

At the end of the day, if undead were walking amongst commoners in towns and cities then the argument would be moot. Thats more akin to Ravenloft however than most settings in Pathfinder, with only one or two exceptions (and even those places are pretty small in comparison to every other undead hating/intolerant society out there in pathfinder).

The act of creating undead is frankly a defilement of a creatures shell, could YOU be impersonal about someone animating the body of a dead relative of yours...I doubt it. You`d be furious, and not to mention tampering with the mortal remains of living creature is immoral even if its for good purposes.

Why else do you think most civilisations in Pathfinder wouldnt tolerate undead wandering their streets...unless they have an unusual society of government, undead dont form part of regular society.

99.9% of Undead printed in ANY 3.5 books are all possessed of Evil alignment, the sole exception I can think of is Baelnorns from Myth Drannor and perhaps Necropolitans (But look at how the ritual to become one is performed...tortured and worse, how is that not evil).

All basic examples even in 3.5 of Undead all have a NE alignment at best, some have LE and others CE depending what kind of Undead it is. Even in 3.5, Skeletons and Zombies that are uncontrolled attack living creatures on sight...why...well can YOU talk to them...NO, are they able to be reasoned with...NO...you have to fight them to the death.

The act of animating an object or a plant isnt in itself evil, the unattended plant of object doesnt attack living people indiscrimminately but it might fight back in self defense. Notice that when you run into a mob of skeletons and zombies in a random encounter, you cant reason with them, its kill or be killed.

Now consider this mob happens upon some innocent travellers who dont have the ability to fight back, the undead wont show restraint, they`ll slaughter the people, children, even the horse or dogs as well if they have them. Most undead dont have to eat or drink, some do, but anyone who is `turned` into one of these diet-dependant undeads (a feature outlined in LIBRA MORTIS) has to make incrementally worsening WILL saves when faced with a source of their diet dependant meals they happen upon to NOT attack and consume them. Sooner or later they`ll fail their saves, and sooner than later they will rationalise to themselves that they will only take what they need and whatnot, and as soon as they start making excuses like that to justify giving into their unholy desires then they have slipped into the circle of Evil despite how they might try and act in other areas. The only good they could really do is put themselves out of their misery to spare us living folks from their predation which is without excuse.

Necropolitans are an interesting point, they are individuals but part of their own secret society. Have you read the process of how someone is turned into one...its horrific and torturous, its not some romantic vampiric lovebite, its drawn out, your fully aware of everything that happens to you and its maddeningly horrific. While the process may not make you textbook evil, the process to make you into one was bourne from evil practices designed to pervert the living into unlife. While they may not be textbook evil, they are still undead and still powered by negative energy, unable to eat, sleep, drink, and so forth and giving up all these things in lieu of what....sitting around forever, unchanging, your immortal and the whole process and unlife of being one of these guys is going to twist your mental state sooner or later, and soon you`ll justify doing things a living person would be horrified at.

Princess Of Canada wrote:

The fundamental reason why Animate Dead is considered "evil" is because if the mage controlling the undead is slain, then these Mindless Undead tend to be prone to attacking and killing anything living that wanders across their paths indiscrimminately.

And yet this is, for the most part, a made up rule, that only applies to a single type of undead (Pathfinder zombies) and has only been in existence since *last year.*

It was never part of the nature of skeletons or zombies throughout the first three editions of the game, and even when skeletons and zombies became evil in 3.5, *they still didn't do that* according to their write ups in the 3.5 Monster Manual (and the skeleton *explicitly* doesn't, according to the 3.5 text!).

Oh sure, you could find a dozen people strenuously insisting that this was the case on the WotC forums, but you could also find a dozen people who wanted to use some combination of Pazuzu and the Surrukh to make a 1st level Kobold infinitely powerful, and those latter people *were more factually correct* than the former (regardless of the self-admitted absurdity of their thought experiments).

Pathfinder is the first D&D game that *has* made this the case, but this 'seek and destroy the living' behavior is only described under zombies in the Pathfinder Bestiary.

Mindless skeletons, even in Pathfinder (barring some sort of errata to 'correct' this), remain the volition-free doorstops they've been for decades, incapable of behaving as you describe.

Sometimes change is good, necessary even, to prevent stagnation. Other times it is ill-conceived, and creates more problems than it solves.

The change to zombies into mindless ravening destroyers of all life *made last year* isn't adding an option to the game or expanding opportunities, since one could always have zombies that had been ordered to kill people.

It's *removing* options.

Adding options, IMO, is good. Cutting them off, particularly if they've been around for decades, for,...

Actually, it outlines this in the 3.5 official D&D Undead Specific book ((LIBRA MORTIS)), about why Undead have a ingrained hatred toward living creatures and why some creatures such as Ghouls and Vampires require to eat or consume something from living creatures to sustain themselves.

The fundamental reason why Animate Dead is considered "evil" is because if the mage controlling the undead is slain, then these Mindless Undead tend to be prone to attacking and killing anything living that wanders across their paths indiscrimminately.

The energy that animates undead is Negative Energy, which while not inherently "evil" in itself, it is the antithesis of life energy (positive energy) itself and it has no place whatsoever in the world of the living. Its brought to the material plane by magical means, and the creatures it empowers (Ghouls, Zombies, Spectres, etc) tend to display a hatred of living creatures in general.

While a Neutral Necromancer could animate Zombies and Skeletons to fight other foul foes and thus serve a greater purpose...what happens when the mage is slain...his `pets` will likely attack the mages party members as well as their enemies (unless the foes were undead, in which cases they`d likely ignore the undead foes and together with the mages undead foes they all turn on the party).

Undead have in themselves no instinctive capacity for good, they if left to their own devices they will wander and attack anything living that crosses their paths. There are very few exceptions (such as Baelnorns from Myth Drannor and so forth, but even then these creatures are still all empowered by a malign life-snuffing negative energy)

Where do you think the average skeleton and zombie you encounter come from...some may rise `spontaneously` from sites saturated by large amounts of negative energy, the majority are formerly controlled `pets` summoned by possibly now dead Necromancers, or they are surplus to these Necromancers requirements in lieu of more powerful undead minions and have been discarded and are no longer controlled.

Its a perfectly valid tactic for players to use....but it depends on the party makeup. Evil parties and characters will seldom ever mind having Undead Meatbags around to absorb some hits, Neutral groups and characters will likely judge it based on its effectiveness rather than what it is, if it prooves to be dangerous for them they might object and Good groups and characters might be persuaded to ignore the rotting corpse of some former enemy thats now fighting on their side or the animated remains of some (now desecrated) innocent villager but Good Clerics, Paladins and certain other characters are very well within their grounds to object to having animated dead around since they more than any other character know that if uncontrolled, these unholy abominations will wander the countryside and attack indiscrimminately.

Not to mention that an enemy evil cleric can take control of your pets and turn them against you and your companions which is something that would never be far from the minds of the party.

While it is true that a mindless Skeleton or Zombie might ignore a flea, most mindless undead tend to go after `concentrations` of living creatures or the largest creature it can get its hands on. A cow over a human for example, a cat over a mouse, etc. but it will still and should still go after other living creatures as soon as the `strongest` source of life energy in its vicinity is slain.

Animated Plants and Objects are an interesting point, since Objects in particular arent animated by living energy, and they arent really living, breathing things, these should be ignored unless said object attacked the undead, in which case it would respond in self-preservation and defend itself.
Plants on the other hand are living things, why undead dont attack these on sight must have some bearing on the nature of what it is to be undead. A ghoul for example has an inescapable craving for humanoid flesh, a vampire for humanoid blood etc. But thats not to say there isnt plant-specific undead out there (there are Necromentals in the Libra Mortis 3.5 Sourcebook, which are Elementals turned Undead who turn other elementals into Undead if they slay them while they have no spawn creating effect on us living creatures), you could have a Ghost Treant for example, but generally ùndead should be considered to be broken down into categories. Random generic plantlife can and does get snuffed out by negative energy (See HORRID WILTING) and is sustained largely by sunlight to grow (which is a form of positive energy). But it must be to do with the fact that to destroy plantlife is more difficult than a living creature, or the plants life energy is nowhere near as strong as a living, intelligent creature and thusly isnt attractive or perhaps doesnt even register to the creature.

Understood...lol

If the combatants are aware of each other, then the Rogue can only get away with one sneak attack assuming he manages to approach his foe.

The only way the Cleric in this situation could be flatfooted is if the Rogue somehow could introduce a mechanic (such as Invisibility) and that the Cleric didnt notice the Rogue. While hes aware that there is a threat around, if the Rogue gets close enough and waits till his next round and the Cleric doesnt notice him still, THEN the Rogue can make a Full Round`s worth of attacks but only the first is a Sneak Attack. Of course if Greater Invisibility or Blink was in play on the Rogue, then every attack would catch the Cleric Flat-Footed by virtue of the Concealment from those spells.

I routinely run the game with 4-6, and on occasion 7 or 8 players. Most of my players have played 2nd, 3.0 and 3.5 and now Pathfinder, so needless to say they are very comfortable with the system and tend to use excellent teamwork to overcome any challenge.

I cant stress it enough that anyone doing the same do some or most of the following.

1.) Preperation. I cant stress this one point enough, if you havent made your own adventure, and are using a pre-published one then some adjustments will have to be made. (See following points).

2.) More Monsters. Rule of thumb is an average CR (equal to the party`s average level for four characters) for a average encounter. For additional players, I personally add more monsters or add class levels to classed opponents. But the easiest option if your tight on time is to add more monsters (adding class levels can be more time consuming). I personally dont make many changes for 5 players (except occasionally add the ADVANCED template to occasional monsters) or add the occasional slightly weaker enemy to a set encounter.
For 6 players, I add more monsters (on average 50% extra) to encounters that use multiple combatants, with solo BBEG encounters, I add relevant monsters usually equal in CR (total) to the average party level -1.
For 7 players I dont do much extra but use the same process as for 6 players but I use the ADVANCED template on most major BBEG`s and significant foes they encounter.
For 8 players I use the same process for 6 players but I double the number of monsters at every encounter and frequently use the ADVANCED template as well as add class levels here and there (though this last part requires ALOT of prepration)

The Average Party level is based on 4 players, if you have more than that, add all the levels up, divide by 4, and that gives you the net CR your encounter should be close to.

Example.)
6 Level 6 characters = 36 divide by 4 (average) = CR 9 (Average Encounter for 6 Level 6th characters)

3.) Being Advanced Players or Characters, you have to be careful with their greatest resource....treasure. Giving too much is a HUGE detriment to any campaign, a good guideline can be found in the Core Rulebook for average wealth dependant on character level. Use this as a guideline. Also remember, whatever you arm your BBEG`s and so forth with is likely going to wind up in the players hands and used by them too. Importantly you have to thoughtful with what kind of treasure someone might find, an average Orc isnt going to carry much beyond his weapon and armor (DO NOT arm each and every classed bad guy with the NPC wealth table`s values, thats more accurate for significant NPC`s (a level 1 commoner doesnt tote around hundreds of GP for example, but it could be said that this is invested in his home, work, etc and he carries very little)).

4.) Problems with large groups. Unless your players are well organised, fights probably take a long time. Use a grid, or even draw one on squared paper in a pinch and use something to represent the players and enemies, it makes it so much quicker that people can see themselves what everyone is doing and makes it run smoother.

5.) Problem Players or Problems with the System. The system itself is almost perfect with some ambiguity here and there (such as the whole Stealth debacle). To keep experienced players on their toes, you have to do some preperation, add more monsters or add class levels to relevant foes, draw some grids out beforehand for significant battles to accomodate your larger number of opponents and for the players to see whats going on, and of course, go easy on handing out treasure.

7.) Tailored Challenges. If your party is melee heavy, its fine if they shine brightest in fights that let them go toe-to-toe with their opponents. You can handle this in several ways...(use these methods sparingly as overuse will just make your players angry or annoyed)
- Use flying opponents with ranged attacks, or with reach weapons or attacks, unless your players have ranged attacks themselves or can fly somehow they`ll have a tough time.
- Use traps or terrain to control the flow of the fight; a rickety bridge or a narrow corridor or ledge should be perfect for ambushing a party like this because their numbers will count for nothing since some of them cant do anything meaningful in some encounters (such as if one of them is trapped down a pit during a fight, or they are stuck in single file traffic and they cant all get into the fight, etc.)
- Rust Monsters. Terrific and horribly efficient against melee opponents. Couple these sparingly with non-metal wearing or metallic weapon weilding handlers such as Goblins with flasks of Alchemists Fire, etc.
- Oozes. Gelatinous Cubes can be challenging if they get the surprise, if not, try out some other Oozes, there are a plethora of them out there and they are hard to beat using melee.
- Magical Backup. Add a spellcaster to certain fights, make sure the fight or terrain is designed to make it hard to reach them (such as they are on a 20ft high ledge or something) while other monsters harass the party. Spells like `Ray Of Enfeeblement` produce effects even on a passed save and the STR loss can be devastating, failing that, spells like `Grease`, etc. can make the players lives worse.

Yeah, they're talking about using stealth to deny the dex bonus, which allows for the first attack to be a sneak attack.

In a situation where you can flank, ect., you can get sneak attacks with all your regular attacks that hit.

But, again, this is specifically about how to use stealth to achieve that effect.

Since stealth denies opponents their dex bonus, you only get that bonus when they can't see you. Thus, after your first attack from stealth, they know where you are and any other attacks you may make aren't against a target who doesn't have their dex to ac.

From a realism point of view I can understand that, can someone point me to the RAW where it says after the first attack that the target is no longer flatfooted

As far as I can see from reading it, a Rogue who successfully stealths up to a target who is unaware of them can make a single attack in that round OR if they opt to, wait until the next round and hopefully if the target still doesnt notice them (possibly because the Rogue may have Invisibility active from a potion or effect, which makes the Perception test difficult) they could make a full round actions worth of attacks including TWF attacks and gain Sneak Attack with all of them.

I am aware that facing doesnt exist in the game, so a character may become AWARE of the attacker after the first hit but he is STILL flatfooted regardless because he hasnt acted yet. He STILL has the flatfooted condition until he acts, thats my point. It doesnt matter if hes AWARE yet, until he acts hes vulnerable. (Unless he has Uncanny Dodge, etc.)

In 3.5 Characters could make sneak attack with all attacks as long as the target was flatfooted, etc.

In Pathfinder, the flatfooted condition doesnt go away after the first hit UNLESS the character only made one attack in that round if they moved as well. Also, since Initiative is then rolled the following round (assuming the Rogue wasnt spotted first which initiates combat)the Rogue may infact go faster than the target...who is STILL flatfooted and can get pincushioned with another full rounds worth of attacks.

Because 3.5 explored the whole Druid and Rogue combo in many Dragon magazines and ALL natural attacks gain Sneak Attack on a full attack vs a flatfooted opponent, etc. as long as the flatfooted condition remains.

While logically a character is AWARE of someone after being struck, they are STILL flatfooted. In truthfulness, if several Rogues acted against one target they ALL gain Sneak Attack as long as the target is flatfooted.

Remember that until a character acts, even if they are aware, they are FLATFOOTED, which means any and all sneak attack attempts made on them until they act are valid. Flat-Footed isnt a condition that goes away in any other cicumstance (such as being hit), ONLY when the character acts on their turn.

----Example Situation----

Rogue 5th No.1 Init 9
Rogue 5th No.2 Init 14
Warrior 8th Init 10

In this example, assume both Rogues move on the same target, Rogue 1 approaches the victim under an Invisibility effect (lets assume the Warrior is in a brightly lit room with little cover rendering regular stealth tests nigh impossible) while another hang back and waits for the signal (the target being struck, they take a Delay action to wait for his partner to attack and use the action to move into the room closer to the Warrior)l, the Warrior doesnt notice the Invisible character (who being invisible has concealment and can use Stealth to approach to make the Perception DC even harder)

Lets assume Rogue 1 successfully makes a full rounds worth of sneak attacks (legitimately allowed, since Target doesnt notice the Rogue and is flatfooted until he acts, which isnt until initiative is rolled), Rogue 2 at that point just moves in straight at the target, lets assume he doesnt quite make it (hes 10 ft away).

Now initiative is rolled, (lets assume the "warrior" survived the initial mauling). With the numbers rolled above, the `second` Rogue that delayed previously makes a 5ft step to flank the Warrior and AGAIN makes a full round attack against a flanked AND flatfooted enemy.

The warrior (if he lives) still hasnt acted, and is STILL flatfooted by the rules and RAW because hes not acted yet. Luckily, he goes before Rogue 1 and lets say he full attacks Rogue 2 and kills them outright (criticals, etc). Rogue 1 doesnt get to sneak attack on their initiative because (1) his partner is longer flanking and (2) the warrior has acted and is thusly no longer flatfooted.

Lets assume Rogue 1 now takes a 5ft step back from the Warrior, out of his reach and uses a wand of summon monster with a UMD check to summon a creature to flank the warrior again.

The warrior acts again, and 5 ft steps away from the summoned creature toward the Rogue and makes a full attack, lts assume for whatever reason the Rogue didnt die from the assault. The summoned monster moves in and attacks (lets assume they miss) and the Rogue then acts again, because hes flanking again he gets sneak attack but not because the Warrior is flatfooted, only because of the flank.

At this point lets assume the Warrior goes down, finally succumbing to the damage.

JimmyNids, Yesterday, 09:25 PM

Also of note, if you attack from stealth using a full attack(say the guy backed into you hiding around a corner as blake said, or your using a bow at range) you only get sneak attack damage on the first hit, after that hit they are aware of you, WELL aware of you, and the bonus goes poof(unless your flanking in melee somehow or the target has been rendered helpless<pinned, paralyzed, stunned>)

I was always under the impression since 3.5 that Sneak Attack occurs with every attack made against a flat footed/helpless/etc enemy, including additional attacks from Two-Weapon Fighting. Of course it depends on the situation (for example, an invisible Rogue who managed to approach a target, get to an adjacent square and then makes a full attack on the following turn).

A character caught unaware is flatfooted until they act, they are flatfooted until they get a turn. Every character that acts before that flatfooted foe gets the benefit against them with precision damage effects simply because they are flatfooted. Its not a condition that goes away after the first hit. (Anyone is free to houserule whatever they want in their games however). Thats the RAW.

Nowhere in the Core Rulebook did I see that it a character only ever gets Sneak Attack only with the first attack - its with every attack that the character can bring to bear in a combat round where his opponent is flatfooted, etc. Thats how it always worked in 3.5.

Am I missing something? :S

I personally had a player formerly who did this very kind of thing, back when I used to run 3.5

He always played Rogues or Ninja's, and always 'prepared' his characters in advance and brought them to my gaming sessions, frequently, his characters had three or more natural 18's for stats (before items or racial adjustments) and no other attribute was lower than a 12 (in essence every stat offered a bonus).

Another issue is that he frequently took his sheets home and too frequently "lost" them and rewrites it from "memory" at the table. I noticed a gradual creep of the lower stats (adding a point here and there, turning an even to an odd which doesnt change the bonus but it sets him up to turn it into a bonus with the extra +1 for every 4 levels).

He was also frequently always the first character to act, with amazingly good initiative, and almost always scored critical hits and NEVER failed a save when it really mattered (he occasionally failed his saves against non life threatening effects but never failed saves against nasty effects).

He used the snatch method and frequently used a set of miniature dice that came out of a clear plastic tube, these dice were quite literally 1/2 the size of regular sized dice and were a dull green in colour with (what I suspect) green inked white digits which made the numbers almost camoflagued.

How I handled this...

#1 All characters had to be made in my presence, and all statistic rolls were made in front of the other players (I use a heroic method, 4d6 and drop the lowest), this prevents griping of cheating on character creation.

#2 Anyone who forgets their character better bring it next time, in the meantime, I give them an option - make a NEW character or use a pre-prepared NPC I created for just such an occasion.

#3 As much as anyone I have my own favorite dice as the GM, and I dont discrimminate against anyones 'favorite' dice. But I wont allow these 'mini' dice, they are virtually impossible for even the player next to the one using them to identify without a very close examination.

#4 On the subject of dice, I specially bought several sets of bone white dice (all types) with clear black numbers on them. Players who opt to use these in lieu of 'suspect' dice could expect me to fudge something once in a while in their favor (without their knowledge) as my personal gratitude for them making their rolling clearer.

#5 As for 'snatching', I use the rule that someones hand or other object cannot be used to obscure a still moving die intentionally, and when the die stops, the result has to be verified by one other player at the least. Anyone who 'cups' the dice with their hand or an object and declares a result is told to reroll it with another player on hand to 'spot' the die result.

#6 Importantly, if a player is suspected of cheating, never outright accuse them. Simply put it in a generic context that affects ALL players equally (eg "All players have to get at least one other player to verify their rolls", etc.). This results in more genuine dissapointment (with failed rolls) and more genuine excitement (when they actually pass an unlikely save or critical hit something at a pivotal moment). It generally improves the atmosphere of the game overall.

#7 I fudge rolls on occasion for my players behind a screen, but i do make the majority of my rolls infront of the players (attacks, saves, etc) except for skill tests which I always keep hidden (after all they shouldnt know if a hidden opponent is trying to steal from them, etc.). Also I make occasional rolls for the players (I have copies of their character sheets) when its regarding something they arent aware of. Another tactic I use (and I am sure many other DM's use it too) is to make random 'ghost' rolls now and then, usually behind a screen, which always makes my players pause and react with alarm, before they think (mostly correctly) that the coast is actually clear.

That seems like alot of gold for an average orc, note that one Page 399 of the Core Rulebook, it states per encounter, rather than per opponent.

In general, it means the 260gp for a Average Party Level 1st encounter is made up with gear of ALL the orcs in question (given weapons and armor of half-a-dozen Orcs, that wouldnt leave alot of money anyway).

On Page 400 it states that "Table 12-5 lists the amount of treasure each encounter should award based on the average level of the PC's and the speed of the campaigns XP progression (slow, medium or fast).

Easy encounters should award treasure one level lower than the PC's average level. Challenging, Hard and Epic encounters should award treasure one, two or three levels higher than the PC's average level, respectively.

If your running a low fantasy game, cut these values in half. If your running a high-fantasy game, double these values"

In addition, it mentions this (Core Rulebook, Page 400)

"Encounters against NPC's typically award three times the treasure that a monster based encounter awards due to NPC gear. To compensate, make sure the PC's face off against a pair of additional encounters that award little in the way of treasure. Animals, Plants, Constructs, (Mindless) Undead, Oozes and Traps are great "low treasure" encounters".

Alternatively, if the PC's face a number of creatures with little or no treasure, they should have an opportunity to acquire a number of significantly more valuable objects sometime in the near future to make up for the imbalance.

As a general rule, PC's should not own any magic item worth more than half their total character wealth, so make sure before awarding expensive magic items"

In short, be careful with what you award the characters, remember every 'adventure' should not contain too much treasure (for instance, you shouldnt go too far over the values listed in table 12-4 because thats the expected wealth a character should approximately have by that level.)

Also remember, encounters are also likely to award 'goods' as well as coins and items. 'Goods' could be anything from spices, meat, etc. to more utility goods such as rope, anti-toxins, thunderstones, and so forth.

I personally use the rule of thumb that most NPC's have little to no actual 'cash' on them, because with several dozen gold pieces why would an Orc want to raid travellers?, unless he didnt have much money to begin with, then he seeks to pillage or rob anything of value he can get, which could be just about any basic commodity.

Most commoners for instance, even though they are NPC characters, dont carry much if any cash on them, because its tied up in their homes and buisnesses, etc leaving them a meagre wage to get by on. Thats why if you try to use table 14-9 for ALL NPC's it doesnt make alot of sense, sure it works for more skilled/warrior types, but a commoner doesnt have or possess alot.

End of the story - award the characters reasonable awards, and take in mind what you THINK the Orcs should have. Personally, I'd say beyond their weapon, armor and some odd items (rope, waterskin, etc) and possibly the odd potion among them, they should only carry a handful of cash (I tend to look back at the old 3.5 DMG for treasure tables because it breaks it down by category...that being said, in 3.5 all monsters had varying amount of coins/goods/items on them. (For example, an Ooze might have 10% coins/50% Goods (Non-Organic Items Only)/10% Items)).