Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

Aranna's page

1,840 posts. Alias of Min2007.


1 to 50 of 1,840 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Hmmm... 1, 7, and 8 sound fun.
Seven would be my clear choice... but since I would be alone in voting for it I am not going to waste my vote. That leaves 1 and 8. I would get bored in 1 if done wrong so my only safe vote HAS to be for 8.

I vote for 8.

My alignment tests peg me at NG with Lawful tendencies.

Sometimes if someone reads a rule with a preconceived notion of how they want it to work then they mistake how the rule actually works. Their read through ignores all the facts while only looking for text which confirms that they were right. The text seems clear to me. Your GM is doing this. It is frustrating when someone in authority puts blinders on to avoid the truth but that's life I guess. Since your GM has made a final ruling then it is effectively now house ruled. If this house rule makes life difficult for your character I would retire my PC and make a new one with the new house rule in mind.


Um... what demented web mastery must Rynjin possess to find that video at this moment? I tremble in fear of his browser history.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Aranna wrote:
So all adventures in your game TOZ are evil?!
Only if you cling to the false dichotomy that you must be evil to do evil.

That ISN'T what I am clinging to and you know it. I will state again: your alignment changes if you continually act in a manner of another alignment. You assert killing actively evil targets is evil. So according to you adventurers run around doing evil acts frequently. Even liberal GMs will change your alignment to evil if you run around frequently doing evil.

TOZ it isn't evil to kill actively evil targets.

Let me try another tact... adventures frequently wander around looking to kill bad guys. In your mind this is evil... continued acts of evil will change your alignment to evil. So all adventures in your game TOZ are evil?!

TOZ it isn't even an evil act to kill the vile villains.

Not even with intent to stop them (as if that is somehow relevant). Yeah of course it is premeditated... again it isn't relevant.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Jasnah isn't doing evil people.
B+~$**%%. She's committing murder. Premeditated even.

This logic is flawed. Is a paladin who rides to the lair of the evil baby sacrificing cult with the intent to slay the vile den of evil doers himself evil? According to TOZ yes that paladin is evil. According to me (and I hope most of you) he is good.

Deadmanwalking, No just no.

Do a web search on "who does batman kill" and you will find a string of brutal murders committed by Batman going all the way back to the earliest issues.

Ok I hadn't read the book in question so I didn't know she killed fleeing villains. THAT is a gray area. But is it gray enough to knock it outside of "good"? Debatable. They were no longer a threat to her... however they did remain a threat to all the other people in the community. They didn't surrender to be taken in for a trial did they?

BUT simply dressing nice and walking down the street IS NOT BAITING! This is the same logic as "blame the victim" and I reject it angrily. She shouldn't be attacked period. Why is how I dress as a woman relevant to ANY crime against me? What she did walking down a street dressed nice in an area where violent attacks are common is more akin to Rosa Parks staying in her seat. With the exception that Rosa wasn't going to be violent in defending herself. It should be everyones right to walk safely down any street.

Baiting would be offering to sell illegal guns or drugs to some bad guys and then arresting them when they take the deal.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Murdering people you could just as easily capture and bring in for trial is pretty clearly a slide in the Neutral direction, though. As is setting out to kill them, as opposed to just stopping them. That's an issue. It's not bad enough to ever make a Paladin fall, it's not enough to make a Good character stop being Good, not even if performed regularly (as long as they keep doing other Good stuff)...but neither is it an act that makes a Neutral character more Good.

A CN character who sets out to do this every night and does, making it his mission and primary goal in life, doesn't become CG. Indeed, the Punisher is a wonderful example of a guy who does precisely that. He is also rather definitively not Good aligned. Nor should he be. Which means, knda definitionally, that it can't be a Good act per se.

A Good version of this story involves more Batman, and less Punisher, IMO.

I bolded the incorrect part. Unless the criminal surrenders I fail to see how she is going to bring them in for justice. And if she kills a surrendered opponent then yes this becomes evil. BUT that isn't what I have read is happening here. If you kill someone in self defense that isn't evil. She isn't attacking them... they are attacking her. Or are you somehow suggesting that it IS non-good to leave yourself vulnerable? I don't know anything about the Punisher so using him as an example isn't effective in my case. She is targeting violent evil and that is good, as it makes society safer. If this Punisher is waiting till evil violently reveals itself and then defending against those evil people (lethally or not) then I guess he is good; but as I said I have no idea about this Punisher so he is a bad example. As for Batman doesn't the Dark Knight kill people too? Unless they surrender? Maybe it depends on which version of Batman you are talking about?

On a related point; Can you do good and remain neutral? Yes. Your alignment is a big picture thing and one act or even a string of similar acts isn't necessarily going to shift that alignment. If doing good starts to define your character then a shift is warranted.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
If you must use alignment, which I strongly suggest not doing, the only arbiter of alignment should be the player themselves. Feel free to provide real world consequences to actions; that's the fun of the game. But alignment should be up to the person embodying the character.

Absolutely NO.

Leaving alignment in the hands of the player is a route to madness and I stand 100% behind the game developers in making an absolute arbiter for alignment in each game. That one person being the GM!

Jasnah isn't doing evil people. Really the hardest core good (Lawful Good) has been called the Crusader because they hunt down and destroy evil. This is merely an unusual tactic toward ridding the streets of violent criminals. Is it chaotic to use an unusual tactic as many here suggest? No. It is good as described. Could evil people use a similar tactic to prey upon other criminals for fun or profit? Yes. But in the case of this character who is doing this to rid the streets of violent criminals it is simply a good act.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

NG by average. I usually play Good characters because in my heart I am a hero. I will do the right thing without a second thought. That isn't to say I have always played good... I do mix it up from time to time. But it is more of a conscious effort to find the evil option.

Follow up: I rarely change alignment in game. My character's usually know themselves well enough not to be swayed by the little things... Although my Paladin Archer fell. She fell hard, straight to Black Guard. But I don't blame her I mean you try adventuring in her circumstances and staying paladin level pure! It would be like joining a pirate game with a paladin. She was doomed to failure.

Just the impression I get from the GMs who advertised "sandbox". Sandbox is a game without limits. Play however you wish to play as a team or solo as the mood strikes you. The world is there. Go left or right and you will find new stuff. I suspect the GM who placed a den of trolls in a low level sandbox would be expecting the player to look for help. Or maybe he is a GM who doesn't understand game balance?

PS: Think about it. If a sandbox game has 15hd monsters populating it but the GM starts you at level 1 you are likely going to end up as a tasty meat snack.

I am not sure I would call Malwing's game a sandbox since his players are sticking together as a team and that has it's own set of limits. It is just a regular game with a more open ended adventure selection and no overarching main plot line for the campaign.

Malwing, did you have all those adventures you were giving them as options prepared and ready to go? Or did you intend to stop the game after they picked a direction and then prepare that path? Or were you just going to wing it regardless of what they chose? In the first case I would advise that maybe you are doing more than you have to. Since you will end up rewriting the adventures for a higher level in the case of the ones not chosen. In the last case I probably won't be much help since I have only had bad experiences with the laissez faire types and not much useful advice as a result. If it is the middle case then try just giving them one main option with any other options held in reserve in case they don't seem excited about the main one. Perhaps a jobs board in town with adventures that change all the time as a backup for when the errands the mayor has them running get old. Through role play they might get well established with more than one quest giver and you could then play the NPCs against each other a little as a sort of subplot in their efforts to secure the best team for their jobs.


~sighs~ ...Sandbox...

I have been avoiding sandbox games for a while now. Back when I wanted to try out the sandbox approach I joined a number of online PbP sandbox games and soon discovered that when most people say sandbox they mean that they have NO content prepared and instead intend to wing it depending on what players want to do at that moment. BUT that leads to no in game continuity (since these Laissez faire GMs don't write stuff down or they would have done at least some prep), poorly run encounters (ill prepared GMs frequently forget monster details or have a poor sense of tactics), and NPCs that rarely stay in character and will likely never be seen again.

That said occasionally you do find a good sandbox GM... or so some people would have me believe. Personally I suspect a good sandbox GM is an urban myth. Why because when letting everyone do as they please they will have to juggle numerous different plot threads as everyone goes their own way; all while keeping meticulous notes for sometimes as many as six or more concurrently running adventures. And that is on top off all the usual stuff GMs need to keep straight.

Um... good luck I guess?

If he won't listen then he won't listen... but that doesn't mean you have to stop talking. Keep giving him advice outside the game and see if he doesn't eventually start taking it.

Now if you don't have that kind of patience then it's best to just find a new GM and hopefully the slap in the face that he wasn't good enough will motivate him to learn more before trying again.

Fair enough, no need to be glum DQ. How would you go about changing people's preconceptions?

~hugs DeathQuaker~
No worries I am having a blast. We have the same idea about the word and why people are annoyed. I just prefer to poke the bear and let it attack me and then when we talk about it more maybe the bear will learn it was being silly.

See I haven't even seen "toon" used in a derogatory way DrDeth. Even here, the insult is only in your head with that term.

I know a guy who refers to fast heal and regeneration as HOTs, Ongoing damage as DOTs, and often talks about aggro in a fight even at table top.

thejeff wrote:
Toon would annoy me. Just because of the word itself, referencing cartoons and/or Roger Rabbit, to me it sounds sillier and as if the user is not taking his character very seriously.

Is this fair? You are painting possibly very false motives onto someone else just because that is how you yourself feel about a word. In all likelihood they have their own completely unrelated way of looking at the term. I can assure you if for example I came from one of my niece's D&D parties and had the term "toon" stuck in my head. And then was referring to my character as my toon in your game; it would NOT mean I was taking your game or my character any less seriously then anyone else.

DeathQuaker wrote:

As I think about it... I think the people who feel upset by it... based on what's been said here... is they feel that they and their hobby is being disrespected.

It's not probably what the speaker intends, but they hear a phrase that in the context they are familiar with ("Who Framed Roger Rabbit" for example), the semantic connection they make is they and their hobby is accused of being something two-dimensional and childish.

It's not a logical reaction--it's the kind of immediate reaction one gets from context, before logic can be applied. It is what it is.

Just arm-chair psychoanalyzing why in this case the knee-jerk reaction is often a negative one. (And the negative reaction is reinforced when they are told they are being laughed at for having a negative reaction--shaming and humiliating someone is only going to reinforce the sense of being disrespected and encourage a non-civil, conflagrationary discussion. If one didn't care, of course, one would say nothing.)

So the more people behave respectfully when they use whatever words of choice they want to use (yeah, I know, respectful gamers, ha ha), the more likely it will probably become accepted over time.

Just going by connotation from my perspective no ill was ever intended by the use of "toon" ..."murderhobo" is a different story. But "toon"? Why get enraged that someone is getting all um... slangy or trendy with their language? If you want arm-chair psycho-analysis I would say the disrespect is entirely in the head of the one getting upset. And no good can come from such an attitude. I don't care about the use of the term... I do care about the people who are taking this way too seriously. Make me the bad girl if you wish as long as you can step back and laugh at yourself later. ;)

Slaunyeh wrote:
Aranna wrote:
I suppose I should be amused by all this nerd rage over what some people call characters. I mean really does it matter? As long as you understand their meaning and you obviously do or you would be confused rather than enraged.
Your definition of nerd rage is hilarious.

Is it? Yay!

If you truly want a headache over terms try reading Aria the RPG. By defunct Last Unicorn Games. They literally coined all new terms for EVERY term in a RPG. And that makes reading the rules difficult.

I suppose I should be amused by all this nerd rage over what some people call characters. I mean really does it matter? As long as you understand their meaning and you obviously do or you would be confused rather than enraged.

Toon: as I said already, it doesn't bother me anymore. To my ear it sounds extra cute and slangy. I don't use it but that is just because it still seems a bit strange to me. I suppose if I was in a group that used it regularly I might start using it without even realizing it myself.

Murderhobo: The first and to date only place I have seen this is right here on these very forums. It also caused me a moment of confusion when first reading it; and it strikes me as rather derogatory in nature despite the frequent use here. I might have even used it myself in an effort to be extra snarky.

Mob: I always thought this term was literal; as in that mob of minor enemies you have to fight to get to the boss. It has been fun seeing other peoples ideas on where the term may have started. I do use this from time to time as it is straight forward English and fits my interpretation of the meaning perfectly. And we all want to speak clearly don't we?

Tank, Healer, Controller, DeePS, Buffer, pull, aggro, DOT, HOT, ect.: MMO terms. I use them and I think everyone does now. They are as new as MMOs I think but they are also the perfect way to describe roles in a RPG, computer or not. No better words exist for these meanings.

No it was obvious from the start that Tahiti wasn't a SHIELD facility. Else why would Fury have to "move Heaven and Earth" to get Coulson admitted.

And yes it is the fact that Ward may have shot the fake clairvoyant on orders from the real clairvoyant that got him so mad.

Sissyl wrote:
Aranna wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Men are almost 4 times more likely to die violently as women, by the hands of other men.

Sooooo... lethal violence against men is not as much of a problem as lethal violence against women, because idiot men are the perpetrators in both cases? Men shouldn't take it so hard if they are subjected to lethal violence (I suppose this mostly concerns the loved ones they leave behind, though), after all it's just expected that men should take a bit of violence, but it's not okay if someone breaks the rules of gentlemanly behaviour and hits a woman? Or is it that if someone happens to be a man, they should know how to and train well enough to be able to defend themselves against at least three attackers, and be ready to do so at all times, and failing that shows the person never was a real man but a pathetic, snivelling weakling anyway?


I really don't know what to say, Aranna.

Wow I can't believe this string of lies and slander. All I did was fix a misleading statistic posted by someone else and now somehow I am supposed to be saying violence against men is ok?! You owe me an apology.

The real issue is how do we help women have an equal voice in a male dominated world. How in ANY WAY is violence against men relevant toward improving the plight of women? Or are you somehow suggesting men's issues should take precedence EVEN in a thread about objectification of women? You want to solve the violent nature of many men fine that is a lofty goal but this isn't the place to do it. Why not start your own thread to cover violence against men?

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Men are almost 4 times more likely to die violently as women, by the hands of other men.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it was because the curse could only truly be removed by real love... But there is a short cut cure if you are willing to pay a price depending on where you were hit. Hit in the head pay with your memories; hit in the heart pay with your life. Pretty harsh in the second case.

Thank you LazarX. That is it exactly.

Oh and Sissyl, the topic isn't domestic violence either. The topic is objectification of women. In case you didn't bother to read that. Although someone stated 40% of men are victims of domestic abuse, how much of that is male on male domestic abuse you know like fathers hitting their sons? I would suspect a lot of it based on the different statistic I quoted.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The term threw me off the first time I heard it; I thought they were talking literally about a cartoon of some sort. But after it became apparent they were discussing a PC I had no real issue with it. I wouldn't use it myself, because it doesn't sound right. But who cares if anyone else uses it? As long as your language is clearly understood you are fine.

Dept of Justice wrote:
Most perpetrators of sexual violence are men. Among acts of sexual violence committed against women since the age of 18, 100% of rapes, 92% of physical assaults, and 97% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men. Sexual violence against men is also mainly male violence: 70% of rapes, 86% of physical assaults, and 65% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men.

A lot of this violence against men is done by men not so much is done by women. Trying to dismiss sexism because men are abused too is absurd when so much of it is done by men.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How can anyone pick just one?

Imowen my twice fallen Paladin/Black Guard Archer... tragic but epic story of love and war but nearly impossible to go back to playing her.

Mei Chan Min my Rim Sorceress from Star Wars. So full of wisdom yet so powerless to affect her own fate.

'Hearts' My struggling investigator who liked both cybernetics and magic and could never choose between them from Shadowrun.

Lady Lucky my ancient martial artist from Palladium Fantasy who was ALWAYS deep into some form trouble in one of the best City Campaigns I have played in. Her in party rival was in no small part to blame for most of it. The GM should have just named his game the adventures of Lady Lucky and the Snake Sorceress. Frienemies to the very end.

Of course 'Mer-Maid' my marine biology based super who got Rifted to Rifts earth. Lots of craziness in that short lived game.

Or Evangaline the burning angel from Nightbane. Who somehow made it to more universes than I care to number ranging from Palladium Fantasy all the way to Rifts and even Robotech.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hama it is a musical. Kind of hard to have a musical without music.

Real love is what she and her sister had... not what she could get from her latest boyfriends. I still don't see any homosexuality... Ms Skaggs must have had a horrible upbringing if she can't identify with the love siblings have for each other and in her strange world reinterprets it as homosexuality.

Since Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are the twin children of Magneto I am kind of eager for an X-Men tie in... whatever term they call mutants.

I just download any pdfs I want to read directly onto my Ipad1. Not sure why you need all those extra steps. Even using iBooks.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Again, Cowboy Bebop. It was a long time since I watched it now... But the one scene that truly stuck with me was Ed playing against the old, demented master hacker... And when he manages to defeat the guy, rearranges the pieces to let him win.

I am not sure depressing is the right word, though. It is melancholy, with the characters stuck in limbo together. And eventually, the things that need to happen do, and the world is sort of a better place. I found it beautiful.

The whole main cast have lost everything they cared about... and instead of finding each other and forging a new future they remain at arms length from each other.

And by the end what has changed? Spike goes off to die. Faye has the whole girl out of time theme slammed in her face. Ed and Ein leave much the same as when they came and Jet just continues on. It leaves me feeling depressed by the end. Sure it is a fun ride getting there but still...

Yeah like Aelryinth I have been mostly doing solos to get the full experience. My wizard started act5 at 88k damage and blasted all out of her path at torment 1. That is until that first big angel boss where I learned the hard way why my build was weak. I had no way to escape being cornered and once cornered I was easily killed. So I dropped to master and kept going. At this point I had 200k damage because the drops of 61 level and up make 60th level stuff look like toys. However I was determined to finish the act at all costs and so I pushed higher and higher without regard for my ever worse gear score (I still have too many level 60 items to function effectively at level 70.) But as I hit points where I found it too difficult I would just drop the difficulty and keep going... by the time I finished act 5 I was all the way down to normal difficulty. Clearly my poor wizard needs a rebuild from the ground up.

I find Torment 1 to be my happy medium difficulty now. But I am taking time off for another day so I can start my Crusader with a fresh energy toward playing. I will be at work when the expansion goes live, so I hope the wait ques aren't too long by the time I get home.

That isn't surprising Pan. Men don't have to deal with sexist behavior on a daily basis. You probably only think of it in an academic sense if you think of it at all. So yeah, it isn't surprising if the term never came up in your circle of buddies. It isn't an issue for you, not even in the reverse direction.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Aranna wrote:
The "reverse" is there to help you identify who is being targeted.
Why doesn't 'sexism towards males' suffice?

Sure you could use that too. It isn't the popular way but it gets the point across just as well I suppose. Feel free if "reverse" has too much baggage for you.

Well I had more fun with this in d20 than Rifts. Being me in Rifts was a lot of running for my life from very dangerous enemies and hoping someone bigger got the bad guys attention.

The d20 game was more like wandering from universe to universe and we weren't as bound by classes. I had a WWII era German submachine gun and a handful of spells by the time the campaign went on permanent vacation. Fun stuff. Good luck with it.

I can see what your saying... I just don't think I will use it as anything more than the descriptor it is. I really don't see the need for adding more nuance to the term. Already people disagree with simple definitions I doubt a nuanced version will stick.

Um no... it isn't different. The "reverse" is there to help you identify who is being targeted. I fail to see why you have such rage over a helpful descriptor.

Was there a point you were trying to make Rynjin? You know before you raged out over a common term.

Rynjin wrote:

"Reverse" sexism?

It either is sexist or it isn't. "Reverse sexism" implies that sexism can only ever apply to a single sex.

Which is sexist.

Are you confused by the term? Sexism is singled out in many cases as against women. While strictly it can mean against either gender; if you asked random people on the street about sexism most if not all of them would assume you meant against women. This makes the addition of "reverse" to the term necessary to make it clear you are targeting men not women.

Freehold DM wrote:
Aranna wrote:

The only thing surprising about the ad was that it was for a convention. Did you all miss the fact that she walks in in a sexy outfit and starts undressing next to a dice display case? So from the start I was expecting her to be using sex to sell something RPG related like dice.

Objectification of women is a form of sexism, so yes this was sexist. The fact that everyone it seems uses sex to sell isn't an excuse to continue... but since sex actually does work very well in selling I guess a few voices in objection aren't going to change anything. Money rules marketing not good ethics.

PS: Upon further consideration maybe men wouldn't have noticed the dice rack... they did pick someone attractive to undress, they probably didn't even look at the dice.

and if it was a man undressing? Is it still sexism when a man does it?

Would I be objectifying a sexy man who started undressing for an ad showcasing dice? I might try not to... but I probably would. So yes I suppose it would be reverse sexism.

It still doesn't make it right even if you do it to a man Freehold DM.

The only thing surprising about the ad was that it was for a convention. Did you all miss the fact that she walks in in a sexy outfit and starts undressing next to a dice display case? So from the start I was expecting her to be using sex to sell something RPG related like dice.

Objectification of women is a form of sexism, so yes this was sexist. The fact that everyone it seems uses sex to sell isn't an excuse to continue... but since sex actually does work very well in selling I guess a few voices in objection aren't going to change anything. Money rules marketing not good ethics.

PS: Upon further consideration maybe men wouldn't have noticed the dice rack... they did pick someone attractive to undress, they probably didn't even look at the dice.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matt Thomason wrote:
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

I guess I dont run into this that often..nobody at our table does this kind of analysis on anothers character short of "hey maybe you should get a missle weapon" or something like that. I realize though that in a situation like to boards where people are soliciting advise things can get more contentious. Guess I have been fairly sheltered from this sort of thing in my 24 odd years of gaming. Probably why I dont always see what the fuss is about.

I'm approaching this from a similar situation. I don't know what all the fuss is about either, but it keeps on flaring up on the boards so I'm trying to understand it :)

EDIT: And given other threads right now, occasionally I just wonder if some people just want to argue for the sake of it :-S

Yes, this is the internet and that's what people love to do on forums is argue endlessly. Fortunately people aren't that way IRL.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
I dont know I think he tried very hard to not make it a label but a descriptor of aproach. Maybe sensitivities being what they are right now there is no good way to make people happy. I felt like it was a sliding scale not a "your are type a, you are type b." thing. For example I would say I am pretty 50/50. I have ideas in my head of the person I would be happy pretending to be for a year before I ever even get started on numbers. But that doesnt change the fact I want that person to be good at one form of combat, and have at least one secondary function that contributes to the party...trap finder, crafter, social butterfly, smarty pants...whatever.

Arguing descriptors vs slider bars is moot. Attitude is what makes two dissimilar style gamers able to sit down and enjoy a game together. Lets face it the difficulty of searching out two random gamers with the exact same play style is high. But if they both come to the table with an inclusive attitude then they can both have fun.

1 to 50 of 1,840 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.