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

ShadowcatX's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 5,121 posts. 9 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


1 to 50 of 5,121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:
zauriel56 wrote:

As a Christian myself, I oppose the idea of the state giving out marriage licenses as marriage was originally intended as a religious institution blessed by whatever higher power you believed in way back in the day, whether it be God, Zoroaster, Allah, Buddha, Brahman, or whoever. IMO the government should issue civil union licenses to any couple who wants them, and if a couple (gay, straight, "living in sin", or celibate) wants their union blessed by their god take it to a church, synagogue, mosque, coven, or whatever that will bless it. This way homosexuals can have government recognition of their union without religious connotations if they don't want them, but can if they do.

Unfortunately.. civil union licenses do not grant the full legal privileges of marriage. And no matter what it was INTENDED for, marriage is a secular legal status that impacts on almost 2,000 legal issues that a couple may be faced with in the course of their shared lives.

What I got out of Zauriel's post (and perhaps I'm reading too much of my own opinion into this) is that s/he opposes state sponsored marriage at all. Marriage should be a religious thing and only that, and if the government wants to slap some tax / legal benefits on people who are in a relationship then it should be its own thing. Yes, it would require re-writing laws, but so do a lot of worthwhile things.

Liberty's Edge

thegreenteagamer wrote:

So, Shadowcat, you're saying the difference is bureaucracy?

Pretty sure there's a lot of porn that doesn't do that. Entire genres dedicated to sidestepping those little caveats.

And even if not, I find it pretty hilarious that nobody in California has opened a brothel under the guise of a porn acting class with expert teachers and acting fees based upon the lesson categories.

If you want to chalk it up like that, then yeah, pretty much. But that's the way it is with a lot of things, a good lawyer, some creative thinking, and the right paper work can make a lot of otherwise illegal things legal.

And you're probably right, a lot doesn't do that. And they'll get fined / go to jail / whatever if they get caught. But given that they are probably doing plenty of other illegal activities, I doubt they're too concerned.

As to the whole "genres dedicated to sidestepping that", don't believe everything you see on the internet.

ETA: Probably cheaper to just pay the fines than it is to pay the lawyer and fees to make it legal though.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
this is a potentially ugly case of similar things not being the same.
Sissyl wrote:
You don't. You pay TWO (or more) people to have sex before the camera.

Oh, I see. It's totally different in that case.

I'll solicit one or more prostitutes for a friend of mine (and give him fifty bucks), and he'll solicit one or more prostitutes for me (and give me fifty bucks). There will be one or more cameras involved. To be careful, we'll make sure that there's not an accidental "overlap" in which he (or those I've solicited for him) engages with me or those solicited for me by him.

Voila~! Problems avoided. Yes? That would avoid the situation, correct?

Because that falls under me paying two or more people to have sex in front of a camera.

If that doesn't work, exactly, we'll set up a three-ring alliance (me -> my buddy -> and our mutual friend -> me) and just won't agree on how much we'll give the other person, keeping that part private, so it's not like we're just shoving the same $50 bill around at each other.

Maybe distribute the videos for profit or for free (gaining profit by ad revenue or however they're doing it now).

Wouldn't that sidestep the whole issue?

Sure, just make sure you actually research all the laws, like required testing, background checks, contracts for all those involved, follow discrimination lawsm and make sure your distribution method is safe, and make sure you pay all the taxes and fees. And don't forget to declare your "profits" on your taxes, ask Al Capone about that one.

My only real issue with either job though, and it is the same issue with both, is the trafficking angle.

Liberty's Edge

Odraude wrote:
For the arroz con pollo, I should have put the stuffing. I don't know how I forgot that lol. That's my fault, sorry. It's stuffed with red and green peppers, some seasoning and some panko and cilantro and garlic. It's really delicious. For the final draft, I will add that to the description.

I'd eat the heck out of that. Glad I picked it. :)

Liberty's Edge

Ok, I've never had Puerto Rican food, but I do like trying new places so I can see myself sitting down here.

1) Arroz con Pollo

2) It isn't something so exotic I don't know what it is, yet isn't something I'd make at home either. And a stuffed chicken leg sounds fun.

3) Pollo Guisado

4) Stewed, boiled, mixed vegetables, white rice. - Not a bit of flavor in any of those words, just bland, on bland, on bland.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This makes me happy.

Liberty's Edge

I wonder what the rules of the contest would say about soliciting people to vote for the video while telling them they don't even need to watch it. Is this how you would want your students to behave? Or your teachers?

Liberty's Edge

The norm is you cover what you ship and the other person covers what they ship. That way no money has to exchange hands.

Liberty's Edge

Paying for shipping is common if you are buying, no doubt, but in a trade both parties cover their own shipping, not the other person's shipping.

And you may be legit, I don't know you, so I can't say for sure. However, when I see something that I consider a red flag, I'm going to mention it. Its nothing personal, when I was on the boards more frequently I would bring up points all the time in third party publishers.

Liberty's Edge

Every site I've ever traded on (not a lot, admittedly, but greater than zero), has people pay for their own shipping if they're trading so that's a red flag immediately, feels like you think shipping will be higher on the books than on the minis so you're trying to get out of that. Or worse case, its some kind of scam you agree to ship first but they have to pay your shipping, so you pocket a little bit of money and walk away.

Liberty's Edge

Your link does doesn't work. I'd be curious about your darksun stuff.

Liberty's Edge

Hitdice wrote:

I'm not entirely sure that TheJeff understands that Pell Grants are need-based, rather than cost-based, but I feel like this whole thread is about to go down the rabbit hole, so I don't want to press the point.

The thing is, if pell grants were adequate and truly need based people wouldn't be graduating college with $100,000 in loans. The fact that they are suggests the grants don't work.

As to the actual education, if we would teach people what they actually need (critical thinking, how to learn, etc.) rather than hiding those lessons in worthless other topics and hoping they figure it out we would all be much better off.

Liberty's Edge

Coriat wrote:
Then we end up having to nuke the first country that picks a fight, though.

*shrugs* It worked during WWII. As an added bonus, it should make the disarmament people happy, less nuclear weapons in the world. Everyone wins.

Liberty's Edge

Torger Miltenberger wrote:

Free post secondary Ed is all well and good, but my concern has always been how the western world keeps pushing back the age at which it's possible to get a decent job.

It seems to me that a better solution would be to make the TWELVE YEARS that kids already spend in school more meaningful. Somewhere in the range of grade 8-10 you've already learned the math/language skills you'll actually be making use of the rest of your life. Current education past that point serves no purpose other than to prepare you for more education.

My proposal is that somewhere around grade 10 a branching path is offered, the current model for those that want to pursue traditional education and 2 year trades type programs for those that don't.

That way we get 18 year old grads leaving high school already certified for high demand jobs.

Obviously I'm no expert but it really feels to me like we get very little for the 12 years invested in the average high school grad.

- Torger

I agree with a lot of this, education in this country could be restructured from the ground up with a lot of benefits, but really I think that is beyond the scope of this thread. And talk about something not getting through congress. . .

Liberty's Edge

Meh, cut back military spending to 10%, and just threaten to nuke the first country to picks a fight. Easily covers education.

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
This is a fantastic idea. But I guarantee it will be instantly shot down as Socialism. Total non-starter if it requires Congressional action.

Of course it will. Something like this should have been muscled through when dems had the majority in congress, but he was too preoccupied with his health care bill and trying to work with the republicans. Maybe in 6 - 10 years. . .

Liberty's Edge

I'm for this as well. They could even tie it to a "you must work for us for 2 years at X salary" and it would work out well. People get guaranteed jobs after graduation and government gets cheap, skilled labor.

Liberty's Edge

A foot print on a planet with no atmosphere.

Liberty's Edge

Wow... I'm speechless. Sorry man.

Liberty's Edge

I'm actually between books (which will probably change with the holidays) but I've stumbled across The Holder Series and am enjoying it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.


Liberty's Edge

If you put him in the bed with the captain's daughter and he didn't wake up, check for a pulse.

Captain's daughter is a whip.

Liberty's Edge

Meh, sometimes the shadowrunners win.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drejk wrote:
The black raven wrote:

New strip !!!

"Personally, I've never really felt the need for one at all." Hilarious :-))

Do I remember correctly that Bandana is lesbian or have I confused her with character from other strip?

She is indeed.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
But you know what Rosa Parks didn't do? She didn't yell, "Burn this b~*$* down!"

What she did say was, "It was not pre-arranged. It just happened that the driver made a demand and I just didn't feel like obeying his demand."

So what she did was more along the lines of not getting out of the street while holding some cheap cigars...

Oh, wait.

I guess the bus driver should have shot her, right?

Only if she was running at the bus driver, trying to take his gun.

She was breaking the law. She refused to move and was arrested.

According to some here, any resistance, even passive disobedience to the arresting officer, justifies beating the criminal while yelling "Stop resisting". Throw in a "Stop reaching for my gun" and you can shoot them too.

Of course, it was a different era back then. The cops didn't need to make excuses, they just waited for the all-white jury to let them off. Nowadays the same thing happens, but the legal contortions have gotten more complicated.

Who here has said that? Who here has said anything even remotely close to that? I'd love to see a quote.

Liberty's Edge

1) If you don't like something someone said flag it and move on. If you think a post should have gotten deleted but didn't, did you flag it? If you did, message the people at Paizo, if not, flag it and move on.

2) It is all well and good to say "(Other) People need to stand up for their rights at the risk of their life." Or to try and compare this situation to civil disobedience, but you know what, Rosa Parks didn't have to worry about getting shot half a dozen or more times.

3) Is saying "Comply in order to stay alive" close to saying "They should've complied then they'd still be alive"? Not in my book. When the victim blaming starts, call the people who do it out on it, but don't try and use the slippery slope argument to deny the intelligence behind doing whatever is needed to survive.

4) No where have I said, or implied, that the police shouldn't be responsible for the lives of all involved, or that they shouldn't be held to a higher standard. They most certainly should. However, the truth is, currently, they are not, and unless you want to be a martyr, that should be at the forefront of your thoughts in dealings with them.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I see 2 groups. Group 1 says "the victims shouldn't have to do anything, and saying they should do anything is victim blaming" where as group 2 is more concerned with keeping people alive than they are with deciding who is to blame when people get killed. Group 1 might be "right" but I can't help but think I side more with group 2.

The time to worry about your rights is when you're safe. Until things change significantly, when you're dealing with a cop, worry about not getting shot. (Especially if you're not caucasian.)

Liberty's Edge

Yuugasa wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Yuugasa wrote:

When I was a kid there was an incident where a police officer stopped a black man in my area and asked him for I.D.

The man complied without complaint, but as the man pulled his wallet out of his pocket and opened it to get his I.D. the officer drew his gun and emptied an entire clip into the man at almost point blank range. When the man was on the ground, likely already dead, the cop calmly reloaded and emptied an entire additional clip into the man's unmoving body.

This was on a public street and there were many witnesses who saw the whole thing. The cop claimed he thought some weapon might have been in the wallet so he defended himself. The man was in fact unarmed and turned out to have no criminal record. Less than a week later the shoot was declared justified.

The adults in my area were extremely disturbed and frightened by this but nothing could be done about it. The incident actually spawned a game at my school were we would yell; "Look out, he has I.D.!" before surprise punching each other in the chest.

Now, to be fair many years later a criminal network was taken apart and it was discovered that that same cop(among others) was on their payroll, leading to speculation that maybe that incident had been some kind of hit, but as far as I know nothing ever came of that.

You mean it's possible that a black man could be shot by a cop for a reason other than "Police just hate black people"?

Of course, but if it was an assassination that is in many ways an even more terrifying scenario. It means a hit man killed his target in broad daylight in front of witnesses with full confidence he would get away with it because he was a cop.

What does that say about the society we live in?

That police officers who are hit men can significantly undercost hit men who are not police officers and eventually get a complete monopoly?

Liberty's Edge

I think he meant crazier and uglier than Manson's girl. I mean if I was Manson and choosing between them I know who I'd pick...

Liberty's Edge

rknop wrote:

OK, I haven't been able to track down all the FAQs and forum postings and so forth that allow one to construct an argument that this is legal, but before I tell a player it's not, I'm hoping somebody can show me where to find it.

The character is a Peri-Blooded Aasimar, which has Pyrotechnics as a SLA, thereby satisfying the 2nd level arcane spell requirement under the currently ill-conceived FAQ ruling from the design team.

With Wizard/2 and Cleric/1, it's possible to have the 3 ranks needed in the two knowledge skills.

Finally: Trickery domain. "Copycat", a weaker version of "Mirror Image", is said to be 2nd level because Mirror Image is, and it's divine because it's from a Cleric domain.

At which point I'm saying, waiddaminnit, you're drawing a tortured connection between RAW and FAQAW to stomp absolutely all over the I in RAI.

Starting with RAI: Mystic Theurge is arguably a very powerful prestige class, since you get two caster levels per level. As such, it should require some effort to qualify for. By default, that means 3rd level wizard and 3rd level cleric, so you can't start it until 7th level.

I usually disagree with the argument that SLAs should qualify you for prestige classes, and would not allow it in a home game, although in some cases I can see it. Again, in terms of Mystic Theurge, where the class represents serious study in both divine and arcane lore, I don't think that stuff you were born with that you can't improve through experience should qualify. But, whatever. Let's leave that one aside, and say that the arcane prerequisite is satisifed.

But Coypcat as a 2nd level divine spell? Really? It's a weaker version of Mirror Image, but because it "cites" Mirror Image it gets to count as 2nd level. It's only an arcane spell in the book, but because it's a Cleric ability, it gets to count as divine. This, by the strict reading of the rules, may well be legal, but DAMN it's cheesy, and to my mind a reason all by itself to throw out SLAs,...

First, RAI does not mean rules as you want them to be. Given that it has been given the go ahead by the designers there is absolutely no RAI argument against it.

Second, mystic theurge was a greatly under powered prc in 3.5 without early entry / ur priest, and has remained so into Pathfinder. It is playable with the faq, though not entirely optimal.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Here is an blog post I like. Many police officers buy into the core idea of broken windows, that low level offenses left prosecuted will lead to more low level offenses until they are normalized and higher level offenses become justifiable because it seems like no one cares. If you apply that to police officers though, how can they justify not looking into accusations against other police officers and yet say that lack of investigation into offenses does not lead to higher incidents of offense?

People never want to believe the worst of themselves or their friends. The broken window is for other people, bad people, not Bob who had your back on that scary call last year or George who covered your Christmas shift for you your first christmas as a married man.

Liberty's Edge

Constantine wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Terquem wrote:

Hold on, let me go get a list of every single person killed by type 2 diabetes, cause that's about as relevant as the information you posted.

People die. Police officers are at greater risk of dying than most people. That is not an excuse

While you do that, I'll grab a list of civilians shot by police officers. Oh wait, I can't because they don't report them even though the law requires it. I guess police officers are criminals too. Now who do we trust?
We are just supposed to believe you on that? Honestly, people say anything and claim they are facts....

If they report as required, show it. That'll help win people over to your side. It really is that easy.

Liberty's Edge

Cops do not think it was an accident? How do you accidentally use a wmd for them to consider the possibility it was an accident?

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It might seem like it happens a lot,but the truth is, over all it doesn't. There are thousands of cities across the U. S. and many of those with their own police force, not to mention state and national law enforcement agencies, and other random law enforcement agencies (like tribal police). And still, most officers never fire their weapon.

Also, no a policeman's job is not to bring the suspect in alive or die trying, that would be ridiculous. Their job is to serve and protect the public interest. Sometimes that requires violence, but it should never require the officer surrender his life.

Where America falls down is in following up on shootings. Look at the Michael Brown shooting for instance, that might have been a good shooting or it might not have, but the response to it by the police has been horrible. (If the circumstances had been reversed and Brown had shot an officer I bet they damn sure would have gotten crime scene photos, dead batteries not with standing.)

Which isn't to say that the police in America aren't overly violent, especially against minorities, but it isn't a nationwide plot to oppress people, it is a few bad apples who get away with murder because they're buddies with the people who are investigating.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the clasp is meant to be used against Xykon. A few hp of damage <<<< going swirly eyed and jumping off the edge of the air ship (or something worse).

Liberty's Edge

The Flying Spaghetti Monster touches leafar ith his noodly appendage and leafar likes it.

Liberty's Edge

Revising my earlier list:

Let Me In
Pirates of the Caribbean
The Princess Bride
Shawshank Redemption (maybe)

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:
therealthom wrote:
Misroi wrote:


In the end, simple probability ended up solving it for me. At the outset, you have three doors, and you have no knowledge of what's behind any of them. Your odds of picking the correct door is 1/3, no matter the door you pick. Each door, therefore, has a value of 1/3. If you pick door 1, you have a 1/3 chance of being correct, and a 2/3 chance in being wrong. Mathematically expressed:

D1 + D2 + D3 = 1
D1 + (D2 + D3) = 1
1/3 + (2/3) = 1

So, Monty opens door 2, revealing a goat. What does that mean? How does it change the expression? Well, what it tells us is that (D2 + D3) isn't (1/3 + 1/3) as we would expect it to be. It still has to equal 2/3, so the quantity is actually (0 + 2/3). So, going against how we normally think probability works, the numbers show that 2/3 times, the prize will be in the door you didn't choose.

The best part of this problem is that it caused so much consternation on the Internet that math teachers actually had their students sit down and test the theory. Time and time again, experimentation showed that switching was the best strategy to win. Yay for fun ways to teach kids math and science!

I'm not getting this. It seems to me that whether or not switching your choice improves your odds depends on Monty's behavior. Does he always show you what's behind one of the doors? Or is he more likely to show you what's behind one of the doors if you have chosen poorly.

Assuming Monty will always show you what's behind one of the doors, you can just as easily pose rewrite your equations thusly:

D1 + D2 + D3 = 1
(D1 + D2) + D3 = 1
2/3 + 1/3 = 1

And darned if you shouldn't always stick to your choice.

If Monty always shows you an empty door your odds were 1/2 when you started and they stay that way.

Monty always shows you an empty door, but he's doing it after you've made your initial choice. He's eliminating one of the bad choices. If you could choose up front or wait until he'd shown you an...

I'm not sure if you are serious or if you're trolling.

Liberty's Edge

You seem to be under the impression that someone in the middle of a riot can say "Hey, this is my house, leave it alone." and the rioting mob will listen to them. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

So what is someone whose house is being looted going to do to stop it? Call the cops? Because that'll goover well and not in any way escalate the situation or bring danger of bodily harm.

Liberty's Edge

The men wanted to acquire two more bombs, the sources said, but could not afford to do it until the Electronic Benefit Transfer card of one suspect’s girlfriend was replenished.

So, so many really bad things to say but I made a will save so all I'll say is that I'm surprised YD didn't consider this state sponsored terrorism.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's no need to feed the troll y'all, we all see him for what he is.

Liberty's Edge

Caineach wrote:
Driver of car that plows through Michael Brown rally not yet charged

I would like to read a more un-biased account of this including what happened for a minute or so before the video starts. Not that it will excuse running over random people, but I'd like to have the full story of what was going on.

I will say this, if I'd have been in the vehicle once it came to a stop, I'd have been terrified, and I can totally understand saying let's just get out of here and if they get in the way well they'll move. Its how did they get to the point where they had already run over someone that I want to know more about.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Why people are upset

There is a history of blatant cover ups from the department

You understand the difference between surprised and upset?

Liberty's Edge

Skeld wrote:
I thought this was a good read. It's various legal minds weighing in on the fairness of the grand jury hearing.

I wonder how many of those legal experts are experts on behalf of the prosecution, and how many of those get paid for their time and expertise, and of those I wonder how many would be afraid to say anything negative about such a sensitive topic for fear of losing a significant source of income. I suspect the answer is non-trivial.

Liberty's Edge

yellowdingo wrote:
Its saner than to suggest that if violence in response to a failure to prosecute over a police involved shooting exceeds the ten million (9 million for taking a life in payout + 1 million to train a new officer) it costs the state to prosecute its own it becomes more economically efficient to prosecute the officer.

Ok. Where are you getting the figures of a 9 million dollar payout for a death and 1 million to train a police officer? I promise you those are both ridiculously high. After having read several of your posts, I really don't think you fathom how much a million truly is (and not just talking about money, I mean just the number one million).

So at around 98 incidents a year, the expense would need to be a billion dollars a year to the judicial budget. The most prized asset in the judicial economy being the training of an officer, the exchange rate would be ten officers per African American and a thousand a year at the current rate of violence. I believe that the current rate of loss of officers in the line of duty was about ten to fifteen percent of that exchange rate.

And here I think you're just making stuff up.

Liberty's Edge

yellowdingo wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Skeld wrote:

It didn't help that during the grand jury investigation, several "witnesses" were found to have lied during their testimony. The physical evidence didn't support the stories that were going around.

That's one major issue with the whole deal, grand jury hearings are not part of the adversarial process. Procescution witnesses shouldn't have been cross-examined. The defense shouldn't have presented witnesses. The sole purpose of the grand jury is to determine if probable cause exists. This proceeding was a sham.
Seriously? You're going to argue that the "witnesses" lying shouldn't have been caught lying and that the defense shouldn't have been allowed to question the evidence? Why not just dispense with the whole "fair trial" bit and just demand a conviction now?
Why not. That Wilson took the life of brown is not in dispute. The only grounds under which a life can be taken is if brown resisted arrest under charge of treason. For Wilson to do so in violation of those grounds is treason.

Do you actually believe this to be true or do you know its false and just hope saying things like it often enough will eventually make it true?

Liberty's Edge

And just to be clear, he didn't lose anything, and this wasn't a case. There's no incentive for him to convince the jury to indict (beyond the whole justice thing but that is so last millenium).

Liberty's Edge

So cops shouldn't whistle blow because it might be dangerous? How is that different from any other part of their job?

I'm sorry, if you apply the law differently based on someone's profession you shouldn't wear the uniform, simple as that.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:

Again, it's all about how Snowden was bad and how he might have been treated and how Manning was treated and how she behaved differently: It's never about what they actually revealed.

Never about the lies and unconstitutional activities of the government. Never about the secrets or even lying to Congress.

Both conversations have a time and a place.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

1. Serenity

2. - 10. As Don Juan
sabotages ShadowcatX' space ship

You don't have to sabotage my space ship just to get to watch Joss Whedon, I'd loan it to you.

1 to 50 of 5,121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 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.