Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Tar-Baphon's Ogre

EntrerisShadow's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 622 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 2 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 622 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you are wise, you'll take the second monkey. It's the only one that does not directly put you at risk. The key is simply learning to let go of your hatred, or at least understanding that if you have $50 million, it really doesn't matter if someone else has $100 million.

Failing that, you could always wish for things that would be nice to have but not in excess.

Cheliax

Really, you don't need all that. Some things to remember to keep gunslingers in check:

1) Touch AC only works within the gun's range increment (unless you're dealing with advanced firearms, which I assume you are not) So a Pistol might target touch AC - but only within 20ft. Flying enemies have suddenly become the Gunslinger's bane.

2) Bullets are expensive. A lot like encumbrance, this is something that is fudged a lot for simplicity's sake that serves as a really good equalizer.

3)Disarm, disarm, disarm. Don't do it all the time - if your player wants to be a gunslinger, then when that gun is in their hand they should be the ultimate badass. But nothing says they have to be every encounter. If you want to challenge them, take that gun away and make them rely on their wits for a little while. Unlike other classes that will have an armory that they're semi-effective with, once the Gunslinger wades into melee she's a lot less impressive.

4) It's cheap, but Dominate/Sleep/Hold works just as well on Gunslingers as any other low-Will class. You don't have to prepare spells that seem specifically catered to shutting out Gunslingers.

Cheliax

Imbicatus wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Really, Pummeling Bully is just a stepping stone to get to Pummeling Charge.
Pummeling Bully is not a prerequisite for Pummeling Charge. You can skip Bully with no MoMS shenanigans needed, and most builds should.

No, I didn't realize. Guess I just assumed all Style feats had to take the -BLANK - Style > Second Tier Ability > Third Tier Ability progression. But that is awesome. Guess I won't need a monk dip after all. And I can free up some feats. Huzzah!

Cheliax

Seranov wrote:
Yeah, a MoMS dip would let you ignore the prereqs. But I'm pretty sure that if you don't have those prereqs and you try to use Pummeling Bully, you're going to provoke AoOs from everyone threatening you.

That's fine by me. Really, Pummeling Bully is just a stepping stone to get to Pummeling Charge. I thought that's how it read but I wanted to be sure before I dipped MoMS.

Brawler 2/MoMS1/BrawlerX should do, I suppose. Losing 1 BAB isn't too bad to get the feat and I do get to bump my will save.

Cheliax

Yeah, there's a ton of these, aren't there? But I couldn't find this one, so here it is - and I suppose this is a more general syntax question in relation to feats, anyway, though I couldn't think of how to word it for a search.

In the Pummeling Bully feat it lists the prerequisites as this:

Improved Reposition, Improved Trip, Improved Unarmed Strike, Pummeling Style; base attack bonus +9, brawler level 5th, or monk level 5th.

So if I'm reading that correctly, for a straight Brawler to take Pummeling Bully after grabbing Pummeling Style, s/he will also need to take Improved Trip and Improved Reposition? Just need to know to see if it would be worth taking the MoMs dip to avoid it.

Cheliax

Kthulhu wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Rose: ... without advanced strength, wits, or technology

That is a pretty good description of Rose. Especially the part about without wits.

:P

Lord Snow kind if picked up the baton in discussing my original point, so I won't bother rehashing what will ultimately be the same arguments. But I would like to add that in addition to the fact that Ten's obsession with Rose was not just about her looks, series 3 also laid judgment on it. His obsession was wrong, and while he didn't come to love Martha, his learning to appreciate her for who she was was a huge part of his character development. 11/12's insulting of Claire is always played for laughs.

But what's interesting to me is how strongly everybody seems to react to Rose. I think I'm the only person who is a fan of the series that says, "Yeah, Rose, she wasn't bad." (Donna/Martha after she was the 'official' companion > Martha > Jack > Rose > Craig -if you count him- > Rory > Claire > Amy > all of the other one episode companions > no companion > series cancellation > River Song) It's like you have to either think she's the One True Companion and all others are merely imitators, or that she is the worst thing to happen to television since The Star Wars Christmas Special.

Cheliax

Simon Legrande wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:

Do whites practice racism? Absolutely.

Do blacks practice racism? Absolutely.
Do Hispanics practice racism? Absolutely.
Do I practice racism? Never.

However:

Do whites have an entrenched advantage in the U.S. overall? Absolutely.
Do blacks have an entrenched advantage in the U.S.? Absolutely not.
Do hispanics have an entrenched advantage in the U.S.? Absolutely not.
Do I benefit from this power disparity? Often, even if I don't see it.
Sure, I'll agree with that. Am I going to feel guilty about something I have no control over? Absolutely not. I'll continue to treat others as I wish to be treated, as individuals. If guilt isn't the point, as some have said, then what is the point? What is the next step after everyone acknowledges it? What is the ultimate goal behind having all white people agree that white privilege exists?

Actively working to subvert its effects when possible. Seeing a more fair representation of other people in places of power. Unraveling many of the racist assumptions that plague our criminal justice system. Recognizing and eliminating racial barriers to entry into higher education and economic strata. Creating more diverse media portrayals.

To put it succinctly, an all around leveling of the playing field that begins to undo many of the ills caused by our history.

Cheliax

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
That chip up there is called collectivism. I keep it there as a reminder that even though I wish to be treated as an individual and strive to treat others the same, that will usually be considered bad because many other people would rather identify themselves by the group they belong to. Every now and then someone comes along and tries to load some guilt up there too. Because for some reason I should be held accountable for the actions of people I've never met just because we have the same skin color. Well there's no room for the guilt so don't expect me to feel any.

Nor should you.

But refusing to acknowledge racism doesn't eliminate it, just as the act of acknowledging racism is not itself racist.

I'm not sure that I ever said racism doesn't exist. I'm quite aware of its existence partly in thanks to the term "white privilege". I'm acknowledging that racism exists on all sides and that anyone who says only whites can be racist is flat out wrong. The way I see it, the only way to eliminate racism is for ALL people to stop practicing it.

Unfortunate use of the word irony aside, that's still incredibly ignorant.

Nobody says only whites can be racist.

OK, most people don't say that. A very select few do. Just like a few people will say all heterosexual sex is rape. But their numbers are so negligible that they could hardly be counted at all and are more often used as a strawman to conflate valid arguments with ridiculous ones.

It's not that people of any race cannot be racist. It's just that institutionally whites have power in America. That's such a plain fact to say it isn't a level of denial I can't even begin to debate with. And the problem is not that people are racist - which sucks, but will never be solved - but that this particular racism is widespread and institutionalized.

Taken individually, it doesn't matter if Abdul next door to me thinks all white people are shifty-eyed devils, or if Jim Bob down the street thinks all blacks are intellectually inferior criminals.

What matters is that our entire culture had been built upon the backs of an oppressed people, and in many ways continues to do so while also disenfranchising those who are identified by other socially outlying features. That is what needs to be fixed, and ignoring it is a tacit endorsement of a system that is still heavily weighted against minorities. Deflecting onto those individuals whose attitudes you find distasteful gives you an all-too-convenient excuse not to worry about how those people are treated.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Xabulba wrote:
Amy was not useless, she has legs you can look at to forget...hmmmm...Amy's legs.

This right here sums up a huge problem with Moffat's run.

RTD Companions:

Rose: Provides a human connection and through sheer determination alone - without advanced strength, wits, or technology - rescues the Doctor and all of the human race from a Dalek invasion.

Martha: A brilliant medical student, eventually doctor, who while not possessed of Time Lord intelligence, is easily the most clever of the companions. On many occasions it is her cleverness - The Family of Blood episodes, Last of the Time Lords - that ultimately saves the day.

Donna: Provides a moral center that keeps the Doctor form straying too far. She convinces him that even fixed points in time provide opportunities to do something right, and the lack of her influence is felt severely in the "Waters of Mars" episode.

Moffat companions:

Amy: Has nice legs. The actress, Karen Gillam, was essentially hired on that feature alone. Moffat was going to pass because thought she was "wee and dumpy". It wasn't her acting ability, or her personality that changed his mind - he just had to see she was actually tall and fit.

Claire: Fairs marginally better, but is constantly subjected to unflattering physical comparisons to Amy and quips about her looks. Also the whole "born to save the Doctor" nonsense. He found a way to keep stuffing the same character in the fridge over and over and over and over . . .

Really, I know there's a lot of complaints about it, but I feel like the sexism wouldn't even be that bad (still bad, but sadly not any worse than most of the industry) if not for the nonsensical storytelling, the recycling of recent plots, and the lack of interest in coherency or motivation. Matt Smith's characterization and now Peter Capaldi's is infuriatingly nonchalant about sacrificing others to save himself. I get that he can be dark, he can resort to killing if he has to, but the peaceful resolution isn't even a blip on his radar any more. The end of this most recent episode - which has earned an inordinate amount of praise, imho - goes right back to that.

For me, there's one saving throw that could be made, and a few people have suggested it. This is all speculation (I don't think Moffat is actually clever or moral enough to make it happen, but I've read a couple of fairly convincing arguments), but right now about the only way to redeem this incarnation is if he actually does turn out to be The Valeyard.

Cheliax

OK, so I've been reading up on this Gamer Gate thing, and I'm a tad confused still. I'm not a huge gamer (Tabletop > Video Games, forever and always), but it seems like this is inescapable at the moment (My YouTube is currently inundated with pro- and anti-Quinn videos.) So tell me if this is sort of correct:

-Zoe Quinn made a video game called Depression Quest and released it on Steam.

-Quinn claimed to be harassed in the lead-up to releasing the game by members of a board called Wizardchan. They say they didn't.

-Quinn's ex-boyfriend makes a blog about her which mentions numerous infidelities with members of the gaming press - the one everybody seems focused on is this guy from Kotaku, whose name escapes me.

-Quinn files a DMCA violation against a YouTube user named TotalBiscuit, which raises the ire of 4chan.

-4chan users are accused of doxxing Quinn and release nude photos, personal information, etc. They maintain that Quinn did this herself to garner sympathy.

One side says that the whole thing is not about Quinn's behavior at all but an expression of hostility toward female gamers and developers. I'm a bit confused by what the argument is on the other side of the coin, though - is it that she deserves no sympathy because she faked the attacks, or that she deserves no sympathy because she brought it on herself?

Cheliax

Josh M. wrote:

I really enjoyed 3.5's Knight class(PHB2). The closest thing to it I've seen in PF is the Cavalier, but I still prefer the Knight over Cav. Knight does the same thing Cav does, for the most part, with a lot less baggage. The "Knight's Challenge" can sometimes require a bit more DM intervention than usual, but works pretty straight forward.

I tried to roll up a Cavalier, and everything about it just seemed like an overly complicated reworking of the Knight. I'd scrap all the stuff about Orders and whatnot, myself. Not every game setting is going to have the same generic Orders.

I feel like without the Order abilities the Cavalier wouldn't really be worth playing though. I guess you could rename the orders or call it something else, but I see no reason to gimp it by flat taking out one of its major class features.

Cheliax

I was inspired to make my next BBEG a Mastermind archetype.

Also making a Brawler inspired by the big bearded guy in Bloodsport.

A Slayer that serves in a Morag Tong inspired guild.

Cheliax

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Fey blooded might be the worst bloodline to take for an enchanter. You'd be better off going cross blooded serpentine and impossible and be able to use your enchantment spells on animals, magical beasts, monstrous humanoids, and constructs.

And yes, a kitsune could take spell focus at level 1, just not greater spell focus. However, if you go cross blooded with impossible, you get spell focus for free at level 3.

Sorry, I meant Greater Spell Focus.

But really, I still say Human > Kitsune. At some point the save DC's don't need to be higher. Really front-loading the save DC's are where it's at. I'd rather get an extra spell known every level than +1/4th DC to a save they probably won't make anyway.

Everybody knocks Fey, but "Laughing Touch" is actually a pretty amazing bloodline power and there are some very worthwhile bonus feats. But why I really say Fey over Serpentine or Impossible is because A) animals are still susceptible to the biggest enchantment spells and B) enchanting something isn't always the best solution.

Sure, if you mean by "ultimate enchanter", he should be able to enchant his way through every situation every time, then you have a case. But if by ultimate enchanter you mean best enchantment specialist, then he should be great when enchantment fits and have other options when it doesn't.

Cheliax

Fey blooded sorcerer gives an additional +2 to Compulsion effects.

And yes the Kitsune can also take spell focus enchantment - but not at 1st level. By the time the differences really start coming in the save DCs are pointlessly high anyway. But a human will have +CL spells known.

Cheliax

I am actually a big fan of human over kitsune for enchanters. I know this goes against conventional wisdom, but really at a point there's no reason to increase spell DC's any further. With my last human enchanter, by level 8 most enemies had to roll at least a 15 to beat my higher DCs and the combat-oriented ones could only save on a natural 20. I also prefer Socerer over Wizard because the Charisma boost is thematically appropriate.

As a human at 1st level you take Spell Focus (Enchantment) and Greater Spell Focus (Enchantment). The bonus feat gives you the same +1 that you get as a Kitsune.

So with a 20 CHA you could have DC 20 Sleep and Hypnostism spells (10+5+1+1+1+2) at Level 1. And compulsions become even better in the higher levels once you get Hold Person, Dominate Person, Hold Monster, Dominate Monster, Unnatural Lust, Suggestion.

Put your human FCB into extra spells known for utility. If you really want to enchant mindless or undead pick up some metamagic rods, but I had a lot more success switching up my tactics as the situation called for it. (Undead have good will saves anyway.) Make conjuration your secondary focus and transmutation your tertiary.

And remember that Heroism and Rage are also Enchantment spells, so you can make your summons or lackeys absolute beasts.

Cheliax

I actually like the occasional theme game with restricted classes. Other systems may be "better" but come on - role playing games are not the easiest thing in the world to learn. Deadlands might do Weird West better but my friends know Pathfinder. Easier to make Pathfinder fit a concept, no matter how imperfect, than have 6 guys stumbling through a game and pausing every 5 minutes to check the rules.

Cheliax

Scavion wrote:
Sarenrae is probably the only deity I explicitly dislike.

I'm curious now - why the hate for Sarenrae?

Cheliax

Umbranus wrote:

I would allow barbarians, as others have stated it is enough to ban the more mystic powers.

How are you going to handle healing? If there is none that could prove to be a pain in the back.

Healing was going to be potions specifically. Plus rest and recuperating obviously.

Cheliax

LessPopMoreFizz wrote:

You can allow the Investigator with the multiple archetypes that ditch the Alchemy class feature, most notably the Sleuth.

As for the Alchemist, I think giving away the Infusion discovery for free will help a lot to balancing things somewhat. Every party will want one, but not everyone will need to play one. It's a powerful force multiplier.

That's a good call. Could work for both Alchemist or Investigator.

Cheliax

Bachelor snuff is really cheap though for any adventurer. 1-3 days effectiveness for 1gp?

And immunity to disease?

Paladins are not only perfectly okay being promiscuous, in Golarion they're about the only ones who SHOULD.

Cheliax

Mysterious Stranger wrote:
Another option would be to use Clarke’s third law. It states that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. Just reskin the spells to a more scientific explanation. Wizards could create small devices that create the effect instead of casting spell. For the most part the device or at least most of the components are expended when the device is activated. Divine magic will be tougher, but could be done by calling on the energy from other dimensions. The alignment restrictions could be that without the proper mindset (Alignment) you are not able to understand the dimension.

I can appreciate reskinning whatever you want to be whatever you want, but I really wanted to present a world with a very different sort of magic. Making yourself more monstrous or donning a headband that increases mental acuity is feasible, but summoning creatures from planar rifts or wagging your finger to sling fireballs should be off-limits.

Without boring everyone with plot details to a game they're not playing in, too much magic ability would kind of subvert the whole premise.

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

If there are no magic items either you are looking at only having 3 worthwhile classes: Alchemist, Investigator, Gunslinger

If you ban those too, then the optimal option is Slayer.

After banning all of that, things are a bit more even.

I didn't intend on banning magic items, but I was looking at an ECL5 with standard WBL. I figured that wouldn't be getting into the truly ridiculous equipment. After reading some of these posts, I might ditch the Alchemist and Investigator.

Cheliax

Rhatahema wrote:
Rather than ruling what classes will or will not be allowed based on what they have access to, why not simply ban spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities? If a class grants one of those abilities, the player can't use it. Then leave it up to the player if it's a worthwhile option.

Seems like that might require too much legwork on their part.

But I am reconsidering the alchemist allowance. It would be a fairly large power disparity.

Cheliax

Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:

Alchemist also have supernatural powers.

So does a mutagen warrior fighter.

Yeah, because Alchemy is specifically the only magic that exists in that world. Alchemy is fine - but spellcasting, shamanism, mysticism, etc. are off limits.

Cheliax

Nicos wrote:
RaizielDragon wrote:
I would argue that the Barbarian should still be fine, considering that his abilities are treated as Extraordinary, not Spell-Like or Supernatural.
Several rage powers are supernatural.

I guess I could say Barbarian with none of the supernatural rage powers, and vet anything they want to use for final approval.

Mr. Hyde barbarian could be interesting.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:

BTW, is there a specific reason why we don't see the Weeping Angels move when nobody is looking at them.

If it is because we're looking at them, kinda makes them extra creepy.

They changed that in the 5th season in "The Time of the Angels" and "The Flesh and the Stone". Truthfully, it was when I realized I really wasn't going to enjoy Moffat's run - the angels were creepy when we didn't see them move.

When we did, they were just crappy CGI.

I'm honestly shocked how much praise this episode of Who received. It's the exact same Dalek episode from Season 1! It uses even almost the exact same "WHAM!" line:

Season 1 Ep 6 "Dalek"

I know people wanted a 'darker' Doctor, but really not a fan of how easily this - and the Smith incarnation - are always straddling the line of 'murderous psychopath'. I don't know, maybe that is closer to the incarnation from the 70s, but we have enough of those types on television now. Do we really need another show with an insufferable genius who really doesn't care for people and only shows interest in them as 'mysteries' to be solved?

Cheliax

mechaPoet wrote:
First of all, an Antipaladin of Callistria sounds TERRIFYING and quite possibly EXTREMELY ATTRACTIVE.

I think a Calistrian Antipaladin is actually the least terrifying and most . . . well, honorable. Here's her code:


  • My life is my path, none shall sway me from it.
  • I devote myself to the pursuit of my pleasures.
  • I take what I desire, by trick or by force. If others resent my actions, they may try to take vengeance against me.
  • All slights against me will be repaid tenfold.
  • I am the instrument of my own justice. If I am wrong, I will take vengeance with my own hands.

Seems like if you just mind your own business, Calistrian antipaladins aren't the worst sort. I could even see them working in a party. What boggled my mind, though, was that Calistria got an antipaladin write up but Gorum didn't. GORUM! I mean, come on! (Also why I am not a huge fan of "one step away" - it just doesn't make sense a lot of the time.)

Also, I second the vote for Arshae. Arshae is way more up this guy's ally.

Cheliax

I'm going to be running a one-shot very soon, and thought to mix it up a little I'd do a Steampunk-esque setting with the only "magic" in the world being alchemy. (Magic items would be a mix of slchemical reaction and sci-fi technology.)

That being the case, I need to restrict to specifically mundane classes - so that means, even though Barbarian isn't technically a spellcaster, it's still out on grounds of having mystical powers.

I think I have a pretty thorough list here, but wanted some help filling in the gaps. Here's what I've got:

Alchemist
Brawler
Cavalier/Samurai
Fighter
Gunslinger
Investigator
Martial Artist (Monk)
Rogue (No Ninja - still too mystic)
Skirmisher (Ranger)
Slayer
Swashbuckler
Trapper (Ranger)

Are there any archetypes or alternates I've missed that replace the core build's spellcasting/other mystic abilities with more mundane things?

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OK, I've tried avoiding this thread for a while, but this is so endemic of everything wrong with this debate and society in general I can't let it go.

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I'm seeing a lot of No True Scotsman going on here.

"This guy is a racist, white, privileged jerk!"
"Actually, he's Latino."
"Well, he's not a real Latino. And he probably grew up in a rich neighborhood."
"Actually, he grew up in a pretty poor neighborhood."

It's not a No True Scotsman. If his family had immigrated from a Latin American country and had a background there, then I would have no problem saying he's Latino. At some point there's a difference between NTS and just ignoring facts.

The Dutch colonized Africa, too. Most South Africans speak a version of the dialect they inherited. Do I get to say I'm black now? If you answer "no" to that, well, then I suppose you're submitting to No True Scotsman. I could easily be mistaken for a really, really, really, really light skinned black guy, so obviously I've faced discrimination.

Remember, if you point out the absurdity of that, you're engaging in a logical fallacy!

If I insisted that Larry Correia wasn't Latino because he doesn't act stereotypically Latino enough, or doesn't trace his lineage far back enough, you would have a case on your hands. But that is not the case at all.

Nobody was insisting he, personally, is rich. There was some conversation about gaming typically being a middle upper-class hobby, which is predominately white. But being a poor white person is not nearly the same as being a poor PoC. Just like being a poor man is not the same as being a poor woman. Or being a poor straight person is not the same as being a poor gay person. Wealth is its own distinction with its own set of inherent privileges, but poverty is not the great equalizer everybody likes to treat it as.

Quote:

Not to mention:

"I disagree with tor.com."
"Well, you must be racist."
"I'm not racist."
"The fact that you disagree with tor.com is all the proof we need."

EDIT: By the way, I want to specifically exclude mechaPoet from this, since he or she seems to have tried hard to avoid such ad hominem nonsense.

There are two types of people who argue with what I call "tumblr's idea of Social Justice"—bigots, and people who can't stand tumblr's idea of Social Justice. What Correia calls Social Justice Warriors (a term I'll concede I misused earlier) do not understand this difference. It's easier to be the hero if you get to call everyone you argue with a racist, completely eliminating those pesky shades of grays, right?

Horse. $%^@.

If that's what we were saying, most of us would be calling ourselves racist. I didn't agree with a lot of what A.A. George wrote. But there is a HUGE difference between disagreeing with an article, and being utterly dismissive and calling the author a racist.

Which is what happened. The first people to start throwing around the "R" word were people who wanted to dig at "SJW" types so they blatantly called A.A. George a racist. And then we were racist for pointing out that Larry Correia is actually Western European, so even if you say "OK, that's Latino", it's still really disingenuous to describe himself as a person of color.

If you want to break this down into a way oversimplified version of events, it's a lot more like:

"I definitely agree with Larry. That tor.com was full of it."
"I found his attitude to be terrible - that first article wasn't entirely off base."
"Whatever, A.A. George is a racist. Besides Larry Correia is a PoC - he's Latino!"
"He's a white skinned European. So, no, he's not really."
"You're racist!"
"White privilege exists and that specific attitude about it is problematic."
"You're calling us racist!"

People on this side of the divide have been very careful about calling those on the board on the other side racist. mechaPoet even apologized for straddling too close to that line. But pointing out problematic attitudes or acknowledging that white privilege exists is not the same as saying white people are racist. The same way most men aren't chauvinists or most heterosexuals (well, sadly, that still depends on geography a bit) are not homophobic - it's just that those who are privileged by a system tend not to notice it. We live within a very narrow experience and don't bother to look at it through the lens of somebody who hasn't had that experience.

Saying, "Your attitude is contributing to a problem," is not the same as, "You're a racist." But nobody likes to hear they're part of the problem, so it's far easier to dismiss anybody who points it out as a bunch of wild-eyed slacktivists who are just looking to slap labels on people.

Cheliax

LazarX wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
You can claim to be anything you want to be, but it's stupid to take every one of those claims seriously. I had a German (as in Germanic descent) Math teacher in 10th grade that liked to say he was black - just really, really deep down - because humanity ALL hails from Africa. Is it racist to point out that no, really, he actually isn't black?
He can call himself Siberian for all that matters. Fact is though he wore the skin of a white man and I'm fairly sure he never had to deal being on the wrong side of a white society. Your math teacher was like many others.... dismissive of race problems, because he didn't have to deal with the consequences of being something other than white.

That was, er, kind of my point.

Cheliax

thejeff wrote:
Alex Martin wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:


I'm not quite so sure what to make of it. They are a RECOGNIZED MINORITY....But they are a white minority. Latin America has a LOT of diversity out there, which is probably why it's impossible to define someone's race simply because of what location their ancestry hails from.

I can understand that the question of racial definition is part of the problem when it comes to those of Hispanic or Latino descent. Correia points that out in the article, albeit in a sarcastic tone and tied to another article as well. He tries to point out, being a person who is culturally/lingually different in parts of the US creates it's own negative experience that is not impacted by your skin-tone.

Given that you have racial identification come up in things like Proposition 187 and it's legal and social implications. Given that there are articles questioning Hispanics' roles in movies or how Latinas are shown, there is a an element of racial bias that has be considered. You may argue that the definition is legally invalid, but there is still a social element that impacts perceptions.

And as a historical reference, being a white minority didn't exactly make being Irish in America an easy experience at one time either.

My problem with it, as I have perhaps badly said before, is that he seems to be using an racial classification that he doesn't actually qualify for* primarily as a rhetorical device. He's appropriating other people's heritage and experience of discrimination to help dismiss it.

*Assuming Portuguese actually qualifies as Latino, which still isn't at all clear to me, not all Latinos are People of Color. Those of European descent are white. He claims he's PoC because he's Latino.

Admittedly, the practical nature of whiteness in the US is more complicated than that, particularly historically. Irish and Italians are well known for not being considered white in the past, but now both are generally, and certainly officially, considered as such. 1st generation European immigrants are often also discriminated against, especially if they don't speak good English. Their children however find it much easier to assimilate.

I was going to respond to Alex Martin, but thejeff pretty much summed it up for me. I really, really don't care how light skinned he is. My point is that he's entirely of Western European descent - he's Caucasian. He wouldn't have even bothered saying he was Latino if he hadn't seen that the DOL technically counts Portugese. (A fact he conveniently leaves out when claiming to be a PoC.)

You can claim to be anything you want to be, but it's stupid to take every one of those claims seriously. I had a German (as in Germanic descent) Math teacher in 10th grade that liked to say he was black - just really, really deep down - because humanity ALL hails from Africa. Is it racist to point out that no, really, he actually isn't black?

Sorry, but I don't see right-wing a-holes at the border with their guns turned on refugee children because they have a problem with the Portugese. Take issue with me not being 'open-minded' enough or treating it like a big gotcha racist moment if you want, but Correia really isn't Latino. Using it to gain some sort of credibility is disingenuous, and that's being generous.

Cheliax

Albatoonoe wrote:
And, as illustrated here, this is the conversation going nowhere. I don't know why I decided to throw in, even though it went exactly as expected. On this issue, people just don't seem to budge. I don't think I've seen a side give on this issue.

The sad thing is I still remember when I used to come to these boards to talk about . . . some game. Packfreer, I think? It's been so long.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Caineach wrote:
He is basically calling all the white people at the con slave masters

This is where I lose it. How do you get that out of the post?

original article wrote:
It was a surreal experience and it felt like I had stepped into an ugly part of a bygone era, one in which whites were waited upon by minority servants.
If the minorities were servants, the whites are masters. It is passive-aggressive and makes pretty much everyone who doesn't agree with him roll their eyes and tune out the rest of his article. Because if he is going to open with crap, why bother reading the rest.
servant <> slave

No, but it is where most people will assume you are going.

That, itself, is making assumptions. I didn't take it that way, neither did thejeff or mechapoet, and even the people who are actually participating in this thread area small sample of all people on the Paizo messageboards, let alone the general population.

Quote:

Black people playing a mostly servant role to wealthier whites lasted long after slavery ended. It's still not uncommon, at least in some settings and parts of the country - though now that few people have house servants it's more common at expensive hotels and other event type things. It really is disturbing when you notice it. At least for me.

But it's very much an emotional thing and I think it's a good way to start. I don't think it says anything in particular about the whites in the picture, other than possibly that they're oblivious to it, probably because they're focused on the gaming.
Quote:

It is a terrible way to start. It assigns responsibility for this discrepancy on the Gencon attendees.

We are all responsible. Businesses reflect their consumer base - not perfectly, but predictably. No, in the grand scheme of things they do not have the power to change that dynamic everywhere. But something cold be done to change it here.

Quote:
Quote:

As I've said all along, I don't think this is far more a reflection of systemic racism in society than it is GenCon's fault. I'm not even sure it's gaming's fault, though there are things gaming can do to encourage more minority participation. I'd read "gaming has made little room for people of color" as "as done little to actively encourage minority participation", rather than "actively excludes".

This is what I meant earlier about having to take everything he wrote in the worst possible light.

I ask again, if every discussion of race issues in the US has be phrased to make sure there is absolutely no blame ever laid on white people and that no white people are made uncomfortable by it, then how are we every going to get anywhere

The first step in any conversation is making sure the other person is willing to listen to you. Starting with an accusation turns them off. Using charged language like "privilege" turns them off. If you want to actually affect change, you need to discuss the issue in a way that you don't alienate your audience. Otherwise, you just turn a potential ally into an enemy. The Tor article fails miserably at this.

OK, this is a bit of a tangent, but that attitude irks me. Going beyond GenCon, just overall, this irks the hell out of me. For one thing, it assumes white America cares about what is happening to minorities. (One look at the overwhelming disparity in response to the shooting of an unarmed black teenager in Ferguson illuminates nicely that, on the whole, they really don't.) Your advice actually is great in the context of an actual dialogue between two parties in a disagreement. But that's not the context we're speaking of.

But the really bothersome part is that it's ultimately saying that the onus is on those people who have historically been oppressed. (Again, not just black people but women, LGBTQ people, immigrants, Muslims, Native Americans, and so on.) After years and years and years, how could people who have had no wrong done to them and - even if they'd not personally contributed, silently benefited from the system that perpetuated it - have the unmitigated gall to say, "Now I'll listen, but only if you watch your tone"?!

These are difficult things to hear, and I understand the resistance. But it's our responsibility to get over that. Just like the "privilege" you used - Growing up poor, my first response to white privilege was, "That's a load of crap! I haven't had ANYTHING easy!" Of course, when I actually read what was actually meant by white privilege and how it applied, it's indisputably true. Sorry if the language isn't dressed up enough not to offend, but we're not talking about a term that says all white people think this way or act that way. Just a term that means being born white in America comes with certain unfair advantages, which it does.

EDIT: Whoops, kind of got ninja'd on that one. Took WAYYY to much time getting the quote brackets right.

Cheliax

Slaunyeh wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
The grammatical syntax he used
Sheesh. We're being judged on 'grammatical syntax' now?

Oh, for god's sake - really? I guessed that he was not a member of a group based on using syntax meant to suggest he's not part of that group.

Cheliax

Hama wrote:
I love when people accusing me of racism are being racist themselves. A fine touch of irony don't cha think?

There would be, if anybody actually called you racist.

To be absolutely sure of this, I went back through this whole post. The only person to ever outright be called racist was people saying the tor.com writer was racist. To be fair, thejeff did a couple of pages ago point out some of your arguments echoed right-wingers in the US, but nobody called you racist. Again, going back through, the only time I actually SAW the charge of racist leveled against someone, it was the tor.com writer.

Cheliax

Caineach wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'm going to suggest that if he didn't discover he was Latino until probably 2009, it's probably not a real major part of his life experience. The cynical part of me suggests he might just be using it as a dig at liberals who might challenge him.

Ding, ding, ding.

Of course, he didn't discover he was Latino, anyway. I know that's your point, but I REALLY want this clarified, because this really cuts to the core of why this guy, and his article, are really terrible. He's as white as he ever was - but now he gets to use an obvious error by the DOL to glibly steal that term with no regard for how people who actually ARE Latino are treated.

And from what I've been reading, that seems about the level this guy is on. Reading over a few more of his articles it seems like he takes every suggestion that sci-fi writers and fans consider other races, genders, or sexualities as evil thought police insisting we're not allowed to write about straight, white males any more.

Convenient how he used that opportunity to mock it, but then uses it in this article, without so much as an allusion to the irregularity, to lend credence to his point. It just makes an already rubbish article that much worse.

And my God, how people are eager to defend him and attack the tor.com writer. The fact alone that so much more scrutiny has been heaped upon the minority person - and that they have so far been the only one to face any allegations of actual racism in this thread - is so very, very telling. Sad, but very telling.

Of course, the fact that the Tor article is a piece of s$$&, fails to back up any of its assertions, and uses poor reasoning to reach bad conclusions can't be a reason people don't like it. Nope, it has to be racism.

I'm not talking about whether people like it or not. I'm saying that the only time the issue of whether something in either article was racist was directed toward the tor.com writer.

I don't really agree with either article - like I said. But Correia's article is dismissive and hostile, and he's made quite a few posts that definitely trot the line of casual racism/sexism/homophobia. But the only time racism actually came up (until now) was when somebody accused the tor.com writer of saying something he found racist toward white people.

Maybe next time actually READ the post you're responding to.

Cheliax

thejeff wrote:
I'm going to suggest that if he didn't discover he was Latino until probably 2009, it's probably not a real major part of his life experience. The cynical part of me suggests he might just be using it as a dig at liberals who might challenge him.

Ding, ding, ding.

Of course, he didn't discover he was Latino, anyway. I know that's your point, but I REALLY want this clarified, because this really cuts to the core of why this guy, and his article, are really terrible. He's as white as he ever was - but now he gets to use an obvious error by the DOL to glibly steal that term with no regard for how people who actually ARE Latino are treated.

And from what I've been reading, that seems about the level this guy is on. Reading over a few more of his articles it seems like he takes every suggestion that sci-fi writers and fans consider other races, genders, or sexualities as evil thought police insisting we're not allowed to write about straight, white males any more.

Convenient how he used that opportunity to mock it, but then uses it in this article, without so much as an allusion to the irregularity, to lend credence to his point. It just makes an already rubbish article that much worse.

And my God, how people are eager to defend him and attack the tor.com writer. The fact alone that so much more scrutiny has been heaped upon the minority person - and that they have so far been the only one to face any allegations of actual racism in this thread - is so very, very telling. Sad, but very telling.

Cheliax

Adam B. 135 wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
The context of his earlier posts - especially his most recent response to Paladin of Baha-who? - would strongly imply that he is white.
You are assigning a skin color and cultural identity based off a person disagreeing with you and claiming that he does not need his culture to be proud of himself. You are currently engaging in stereotyping.

Actually, I based it off to how he responded to earlier posts specifically talking about minorities. The grammatical syntax he used indicated being separate from the subject being spoken of in previous replies. It's based on context clues, not stereotyping based on his political outlook.

But I love how many people were eager to agree with your assumption.

Cheliax

The context of his earlier posts - especially his most recent response to Paladin of Baha-who? - would strongly imply that he is white.

Cheliax

Hama wrote:
Also, I don't get pride in anything but your own accomplishments. Why should anyone be proud of something they had no influence over?

The reason you don't "get it" is because you are not a member of a group that has historically been discriminated against or told that part of you makes you inferior to the dominant group.

That pride is not the word as you would use it. Pride is refusing to accept a cultural attitude that your race is something to be ashamed of, or that you should change aspects of yourself to appease those in power.

Cheliax

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adam B. 135 wrote:

I really want to post more here, but I gotta sleep. I just want to know, how do the new posters in this thread feel about this statement?

A.A. George wrote:


"I’ve been told time and again by gamers, “I don’t see race” as if they were doing me a kindness. This is not enlightenment or progressiveness. It is ignorance. If you do not see race, you do not see me. You do not see my identity, my ethnicity, my history, my people. What you are telling me, when you say “I do not see race,” is that you see everything as the normal default of society: white. In the absence of race and ethnicity, it is only the majority that remains. I am erased."
I personally found it offensive for reasons stated on page 1. Do you find this statement acceptable? Why?

I don't find it offensive at all.

Too often (usually) well-meaning white people say, "I don't see race" as confirmation that they're not at all racist. But it is a rather ignorant thing to say for precisely the reasons he's pointing out. What he's saying is that it is used as a way to be able to ignore other cultures and experiences because, to you, there is no difference.

There's a reason Stephen Colbert mocks the "I don't see race" line in his conservative-pundit guise. It is a dismissive thing to say. (And too often used to justify ignoring very real racial disparities in hiring, education, and our criminal justice system.) To respect a person is to respect the whole person - that includes understanding how their experience differs from yours due to not being a member of the dominant culture. The statistics do not lie - being black in America is very different from being white. (Also being gay, Latino/a, a woman, or non-Christian, but one thing at a time.)

DeadManWalking wrote:
He, uh, never claimed it was factual. And, much as I'm actually a strong advocate of working to destroy subconscious and cultural prejudices (which are a serious problem), a lot of people who go on about them come come across precisely like that, especially when they talk about it on the internet. So...it's a caricature, but not necessarily a completely inaccurate one.

The factual claim was in response to Hama's post. Hama did call it a factual, well reasoned argument - which I did not find the response to be at all.

Also, I don't accept the 'caricature as not entirely inaccurate' argument. A personal anecdote: My greatest shame is that in my late teens and early twenties I was one of those MRA guys. I technically believed in equality for women, but I saw every argument as the work of feminazis trying to undermine men at every turn. Women should have rights, but if we weren't careful, these castrating man-haters would make all penetrative sex classified as 'Rape'.

The turnaround came when somebody finally asked me if I had ever, personally, encountered a feminist who was actually like that. When I had to really think of it --- no, no I hadn't. Not on the internet. Not in real life.

No, the only feminists like that I ever "encountered" were straw feminists and precisely that type of made-up caricature everybody just knew existed. Even the actual woman that were often singled out as being the perfect example of how those women REALLY exist- Hillary Clinton, Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworkin - came across very different when you read them in context and not as clips cherry picked to sound terrible. Those marauding misandrists I'd been told about existed only in the heads of my fellow men's activists.

Worst of all, because that was how we saw the opposition, the things we said truly were vile. You can justify so much when you just know the other side is ten times worse. And once I was out, I saw it in so many other groups that had picked sides in the so-called culture "war" - because all is fair in love and war, after all.

So I ask you - How often have you actually encountered these kind of "SJWs", and how often has that encounter been second hand through people complaining about them? I'm betting if you really stop to think about it, most of that awareness we have of those sort of people is through news stories that thrive on drumming up controversy (Don't get me started on the infamous "Some are saying..." 'news' pieces) and people like Larry Correia that want to make a point.

I do not accept that any caricature is accurate, because I have had it demonstrated to me firsthand how blinding and dangerous that sort of thinking is. If there is a group or individual this guy thinks is wrong, he needs to argue with that group/individual. His issue is with the tor.com writer's assessment of GenCon and gaming - so that is the argument that should be had.

Also, this thread's title is misleading . . . it's true he DID say that, but it was a minor point in an article with a very different main thesis.

Cheliax

Hama wrote:

Actually the guy who wrote the fist article was very racist in that article.

And the guy tore his arguments apart with actual arguments.

I despise social justice warriors.

So obviously your take is clearly unbiased and not all weighted to side with the person whose opinions coincide with your preconceived notions.

I especially love his comparison of being a Republican to the suffering of ethnic minorities. That's totally accurate and factually sound, and not at all ridiculous hyperbole that ignores very real societal issues in favor of being judged upon a political philosophy with well defined values that many people disagree with and you can choose not to make the focal point of a conversation.

But my absolute favorite part of his 'factual' account is when he had a made-up conversation with a fictional Social Justice Warrior caricature whose words he got to cherry pick.... gee, who left all of this straw laying around?

If someone had an interest in turning a critical eye to these pieces, they would see that both have their issues. But nope, it confirms a convenient outlook that doesn't require you to have to consider people different from you, so obviously it's a complete blowout!

Sorry those "Social Justice Warriors" bother you. How dare those jerks ruin your good time by trying to make things better for minorities or women? Dastardly!

Cheliax

The sad thing is the Hunter would actually be a great class . . . if the Druid didn't exist. And technically the fact that it's mechanically weaker is a good thing for balance's sake. It's not like it's terrible - I'd still rank it a solid Tier 3 alongside Paladins and Bards.

But the problem is the Druid DOES exist, so I struggle to find a reason you'd choose a Hunter instead.

Cheliax

VRMH wrote:
Carrick wrote:
Sounds like this guy might be happier as a paladin of Shelyn instead.
That could actually be your solution. Have him being "passed on" from one Goddess to the next, as a parallel to his worldly behaviour.

I'm going to add to the chorus to say you might encourage him to become a paladin of Shelyn. She seems way more in line for what he wants to play.

Of course, the problem also is that this is RotRL, and it treats 'lust' as being something "sinful", so . . .

Cheliax

Dustin Ashe wrote:

Nice to see a thread giving praise where it's due.

Entreris, you might also enjoy reading this one written in very much the same spirit as your thread here.

That's awesome. Thanks for the link!

Cheliax

26 people marked this as a favorite.

Fair warning, this is going to get rather maudlin.

Lately, it seems like there has been an uptick in threads blasting Paizo for the editorial decisions they've made. I won't be too specific here, but let's just say there have been complaints levied about the insulting lack of eye candy, or Paizo menacingly pushing the so-called 'gay agenda'. And to the credit of the posters here - and the human race - most of the community has rushed to Paizo's defense.

But I'm tired of waiting an reacting to negativity. Too often those of us who are impressed by the decisions a company makes are content to say 'Oh, that's nice' to ourselves and move on, while the bitter and angry minority tries to drown out the rest to sound bigger than they are.

So, apropos of no (specific) complaint:

Thank you, Paizo, for making a dedicated effort to include LGBTQ individuals - who have made up a large part of the human experience, but who have been relegated to obscurity bordering on invisibility.

Thank you for writing well-rounded female characters that are not relegated to damsels in distress and trophies to be won. For not treating female sexuality as something sinful or shameful, or as something that exists for men and male players.

Thank you for presenting humanity as a wide range of ethnicity and body types, and creating a human 'culture' that is as varied as our experiences in the real world. We are not uniform as a species - our art should reflect that.

Thank you for being accessible to your consumers. Far more often than not it feels as though companies are an unknown entity, rather than actual organization made of up of living people. Many companies, especially the larger ones, are content to allow third party intermediaries handle any direct public interaction and remain hidden behind official press releases.

Does Paizo achieve these things 100% of the time? No. Nobody does. But they are perhaps the most consistently thoughtful of any major tabletop or fantasy publisher on the market today. That they strive to reach a goal that is ultimately impossible, while managing to get a little closer at every opportunity, is something most of us appreciate - even if we do not say it often enough.

I started playing Pathfinder because I love role-playing and I love fantasy. It could have been any fantasy TTRPG, but with nearly every decision that Paizo makes in its materials and as a company in general, I feel more confident about that decision. There are very few companies I will gladly give my hard earned money to without a bit of ethical trepidation, and Paizo is chief among them. Thank you for being that, especially in an industry that desperately NEEDS a company like that.

Cheliax

After seeing so many people choose it, I have to ask: Am I the only person who feels like the "Original" Core 4 is probably the worst lineup you could choose?

Fighter - Super, super weak.
Cleric - Superpowered fighter. (Plus dozens of other possibilities.)
Rogue - Fighter looks strong by comparison.
Wizard - Narrative god.

I'm surprised so many people want to keep them.

Cheliax

Just to make my actual list:

Gnomes, Gnomes, Gnomes, Gnomes, Gnomes, Gnomes, and Gnomes.

What, I can't do that? Fine I'll play by the rules.

Dwarves - Dwarves are sort of on here as the least-bad of "Races I Don't Care For". (The worst I can say? Every dwarf I've ever encountered was played exactly the same. Left a bad taste in my mouth.) Most of the extra races are elemental or planar - which, as many others have said, should really be an applied template. The remaining ones are 90% anthro and I HATE anthro.

Elves - I've always enjoyed elves, and they offer so much mechanically that it's not hard to justify keeping them.

Gnomes - I love Gnomes. They're different from any other race and get some boons that are flavorful without being gamebreaking. 3.5 Gnomes? Meh. Pathfinder Gnomes? Friggin' awesome.

Goblins - Replaces halflings as the other small race. I always feel like Halflings and Gnomes are too similar, and I just don't care for halflings - they have the same problem as the Summoner for me: They never seem to fit ANYWHERE in the provided world. Apparently they're there to remind us this is based on Tolkien. Goblins are fun, over the top, and make way better halflings than halflings.

Hobgoblins - Replaces half-orcs. I despise "half"-anything races. The only reason I've ever seen anybody take one is for the weapon proficiencies or broken alternative FCBs. Also half-orcs encourage way too much "Rape as Backstory", another thing that sticks in my craw. I prefer hobgoblins as the outsider, semi-monstrous go-to race.

Humans - To provide a baseline. We are human, having humans gives us a reference point to understand how the other races relate to us. They need a nerf, but that's a different topic. (I felt like a Bonus feat and extra skill point were good enough boons - did they really need the floating +2???)

Kobolds - Replaces half-elves. With a stat boost, preferably. Really play up the difference between kobolds and goblins here - possibly giving them a CHA or INT boon to reflect their draconic heritage and intricate knowledge of engineering. Also rounds out the list a little more to have 3 small races vs 3 medium races vs 1 in between (Dwarves are sorta smallish-medium).

Cheliax

Mattastrophic wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

There was a pretty in-depth discussion of it here.

From what I could tell the classes usually labeled tier 3 were like Paladin, Bard, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Warpriest, Magus, Hunter, Barbarian. Pretty much anything with 6 levels of spellcasting made it here (aside from the Summoner which was Tier 2 or possibly Tier 1 depending on who you asked.)

Thanks for the link. That discussion is a bit of a mess, though. There's also the problem of "splat or no-splat?" which was there in the 3.5 version of the tier list as well. When you assume that every character has full access to everything ever printed, there are going to be issues.

Anyways... am I the only one who left all the full-casters off his list?

-Matt

I very nearly did - in fact, I think the only full caster to make it on my list was the Sorcerer. But ultimately that was because casters are just too big a part of the game to me, and Sorcerers are slightly more balanced than a Wizard imho. But truthfully, I might consider replacing Sorcerer with Hunter for balance - without the broken Druids or Summoners around to steal their thunder, the Hunter is a pretty solid class.

Cheliax

After reading the interpretation key, I'm now afraid I might be a narcissistic serial killer.

But at least I have a great sex life.

Cheliax

Tensor wrote:


1) What is your favorite animal and why (give two or three sentences only) ?

Hippos. Hippos are one of the most misunderstood animals out there - they're seen as fat, goofy beasts, but in reality, hippos are dangerous predators that even crocodiles avoid. There's something kind of cool about that.

Quote:
2) What is your favorite color and why (give two or three sentences only) ?

Blue. I don't know why - makes my eyes pop, I guess?

Quote:
3) Imagine yourself sitting alone in a completely white room with no windows, describe this room in two or three sentences.

It's square, with a desk in the middle. I imagine any sound echoes loudly.

Quote:
4) Imagine a waterfall, describe it in two or three sentences.

It's tropical, surrounded by lush plants and fauna. It empties in a clear blue basin, and the air smells fresh around it.

1 to 50 of 622 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com 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.