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

thejeff's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 16,017 posts (16,816 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 6 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 16,017 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Lord Snow wrote:
Marik Whiterose wrote:
I think that it's the fact that she was on the front lines in WW II and is now relegated to the role of a glorified secretary back home that gets to her more than the rampant sexism of that day and age.

This is a very good point. In the first CA movie, Carter was presented as some sort of badass that the people involved in the project of creating CA were already trusting (it always irritated me, by the way, that it was made very clear that she is a good trusted woman of action, yet somehow nobody ever considered choosing her to be the first to be tested with the new super-soldier thingy - just one of the things that make that movie bad). So she was involved in matters, treated as an equal and relied upon.

The war is over and she is relegated to the role of "The girlfriend of Steve Rogers" rather than having her own accomplishments count. Nobody remembers her as a person or even a soldier, only as the love interest of someone else. Now she is treated as dead weight by her fellow SSSR agents. I can see why that would upset her.

Of course, these justifications are things that we the fans come up with. I doubt very much that the writers of the series have seriously considered it. Most likely they just wanted to give a feminist tint to the show and make the heroine more relate able. I find that these are the kind of things that people are willing to ignore or rationalize if they like the show, and present as arguments why the show is bad if they don't like it.

I wouldn't be surprised if they did. I haven't watched the show enough to know, but it's not that much of a stretch.

I'm also not particularly irritated that she wasn't considered for the super-soldier program - She really just wouldn't have been. It would even be hard, in a '40s context, to bring up why she wasn't considered. It just wouldn't come up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Krensky wrote:

As a hypothetical discussion since I'm not familiar with the statistics, that's just the flip side of the same coin of sexism being bad.

Men receive harsher sentences then women because they're perceived as stronger, more responsible, better able to handle it (or women receive lighter ones because they're weaker, less responsible for their actions, or need to be protected; pick your perspective) is an element of sexism. It's similar to the practical effects of pleading the belly in common law. It's similar to the anecdotal bias towards women who better fit traditional gender roles in family court (again, I'm not familiar with the statistics although I think evidence of the bias here is better supported).

And yet... You don't see feminists fighting to be treated equally on this matter.

Hmmm... I wonder why...

Perhaps you'd be happier if feminists first fixed all of men's problems and only then worried about women?

Of course feminists are actually fighting to fix the suggested root cause of that matter - if women are no longer perceived to be weaker, less responsible for their actions, or in need of protection, that will lead to the changes you want.


stormcrow27 wrote:

By the definitions I see here, a lot of 1st through 2nd Ed modules make the PCs instant murderhobos. And a lot of 3.5, Pathfinder, 4.0 and I suspect 5.0 as well.

A)Most adventures or campaigns use TWO hooks to motivate players to care about the problem that needs to be solved. One is financial gain (ie reward money, magic items, land and title, stronghold) and the other is a philosophical or emotional appeal to the players as a roleplaying hook. Save the princess from the evil dragon, explore the dungeon in which monsters can boil up and devour everything, reassemble the magic crystals that allow you to free the great evil from its slumber to fight it in person, etc.

Most modules rely on the financial gain because it's simple and generic and the authors don't know anything about the actual characters who will play in it. Many also include some other suggestion for hooking characters. Interestingly, 1st level modules and APs, which can assume more of a blank slate, often are much better about providing hooks that aren't just "You get hired to X".

Frankly, I find that kind of hook in a ongoing home game to be lazy GMing, though it's also often just imitation of the examples the GM has seen.
In fairness, for reasons I don't really understand, some people actually like the "We go check the jobs board at the tavern" style of play. It takes all types.


mechaPoet wrote:
thejeff wrote:
mechaPoet wrote:
thejeff wrote:
There are certainly fuzzy bits around the edges of our gender classification system - and some "primitive" cultures had their own ways of addressing those, but for the basic view from 10,000 feet (or 10,000 years into the past) those fuzzy bits really aren't too relevant. Unless you're going to argue that people back then didn't also grasp the two basic divisions, while possibly acknowledging some others.
So, while I'm glad you put "primitive" in quotes to acknowledge the often problematic use of that term in describing people, the term "two basic divisions" seems weird to me because it still relies on a binary idea of gender and sex. There are contemporary cultures across the world that have more than two genders, and they don't consider those gender options to be "male, female, and then the other one(s)." I dunno, I would have more to say about this but I guess it all just boils down to: "the gender binary is bad and outright dangerous and other lethal for anyone who doesn't conform to it."

Not arguing that (and couldn't really come up with a better word than primitive, it got the meaning across at least.)

There are plenty of cultures, past and present that acknowledge more than two genders, though what those genders are is not particularly consistent. There are no cultures, past or present, that I'm aware of, that don't include male and female among the genders they recognize and those genders cover the vast majority of individuals, again in every case I'm aware of. I don't want to dismiss those who conform to it, but when we're dealing with deep history or other cultures where we don't have detailed knowledge it's a mistake to dismiss that basic division. We don't know the details how any given Neolithic culture constructed gender, but to suggest that they didn't have male and female genders that broke down on basically biological line is a pretty radical notion and would require some serious evidence. How they classified

... Fair points. And I don't think you're arguing in favor of the gender binary, and it is interesting to think of how cultures typically conceive of genders with at least two options of male and female.

Still, though, I think using the term "basic division" is potentially othering? I feel like the basic structure of gender categories consist of both biological sex, gendered social roles, and masculine/feminine presentation. The existence of the feminine female/masculine male genders across several (if not all?) cultures shouldn't lead to that pair being conceived of as basic, or default, or "normal" is principally what I'm getting at here. And again, I don't necessarily think that's what you're arguing, but I think it's something that's important to keep in mind.

TL;DR down with the gender binary.

It probably is. I'm completely open to better ways to say it.

My main point is that the idea that gender is culturally defined is too broad. There's a lot that is: Gender roles are culturally defined - though the physical differences play a strong role there, exactly where the dividing lines are drawn and how people are classified who don't conform as either male or female, whether physically or mentally, all that is cultural. But the division into male and female reflects biological fact and as far as I can tell always covers the vast majority of the population. Universal enough to be used cross culture and cross history, even when we can't get at the details.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a counter-example. A culture with radically different conceptions of gender would be fascinating. One with many different genders, none of them directly corresponding to primary sexual characteristics and none of them overwhelming in number, maybe? I don't know. It's really hard to even conceive of.


mechaPoet wrote:
thejeff wrote:
There are certainly fuzzy bits around the edges of our gender classification system - and some "primitive" cultures had their own ways of addressing those, but for the basic view from 10,000 feet (or 10,000 years into the past) those fuzzy bits really aren't too relevant. Unless you're going to argue that people back then didn't also grasp the two basic divisions, while possibly acknowledging some others.
So, while I'm glad you put "primitive" in quotes to acknowledge the often problematic use of that term in describing people, the term "two basic divisions" seems weird to me because it still relies on a binary idea of gender and sex. There are contemporary cultures across the world that have more than two genders, and they don't consider those gender options to be "male, female, and then the other one(s)." I dunno, I would have more to say about this but I guess it all just boils down to: "the gender binary is bad and outright dangerous and other lethal for anyone who doesn't conform to it."

Not arguing that (and couldn't really come up with a better word than primitive, it got the meaning across at least.)

There are plenty of cultures, past and present that acknowledge more than two genders, though what those genders are is not particularly consistent. There are no cultures, past or present, that I'm aware of, that don't include male and female among the genders they recognize and those genders cover the vast majority of individuals, again in every case I'm aware of. I don't want to dismiss those who conform to it, but when we're dealing with deep history or other cultures where we don't have detailed knowledge it's a mistake to dismiss that basic division. We don't know the details how any given Neolithic culture constructed gender, but to suggest that they didn't have male and female genders that broke down on basically biological line is a pretty radical notion and would require some serious evidence. How they classified those who didn't conform in one way or another is something we probably will never know, but it's not likely to have had much effect on how traditional gender roles developed - though it certainly would have had huge effect on individuals at the time.
Again, view from 10,000' here. The big picture can be seen in broad strokes. The details not so clear.


mechaPoet wrote:
All I'm saying about that particular article's summary of one of Engels' points is that the particular conception of Neolithic gender is most likely based in an understanding of history from the viewpoint of Engels' contemporary conception of gender.

That much is certainly true.

For all the obvious reasons, I wouldn't put a lot of faith in Engels' ideas on gender relations - or anyone else's of his time.

Quote:
Humans have a degree of sexual dimorphism, sure, but it's much less pronounced than in most primates. Also, the very concept of "two sexes" is a product of biological classification. And I'm not saying that there aren't sexual differences between given human bodies (duh), but rather that our classification of them is still just a product of culture (fun fact: the sciences are cultural institutions, as much as some people like to assert that they're somehow outside of, or objective with regards to, culture).

There are certainly fuzzy bits around the edges of our gender classification system - and some "primitive" cultures had their own ways of addressing those, but for the basic view from 10,000 feet (or 10,000 years into the past) those fuzzy bits really aren't too relevant. Unless you're going to argue that people back then didn't also grasp the two basic divisions, while possibly acknowledging some others.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
What my prof taught us, and I have no idea whether it's true or not, is that in hunter-gatherer societies, women TENDED to take care of the kids more (the men also took care of the kids) and the men TENDED to go hunting more, but that that was pretty much a recreational trip with the boys because most of the time the men just gathered alongside the women which was usually sufficient to meet the h-g's dietary needs. Or so I was taught. As I said, I asked her about her claim that there was no sexual division of labor, and she said "Well, there wasn't much."

What I learned, though it was awhile ago, is that the men tended to hunt and the women tended to gather.

Women did provide the majority of the food. When the hunts failed, everyone ate what the women provided. When the hunts succeeded, it was mostly a status feast kind of thing. This interpretation certainly included sexual division of labor, but also really wasn't very sympathetic to the male side.


mechaPoet wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Or you know, the evidence presented by anthropology, primate studies, and archeology, etc.

Oh , wait, those are all inventions of the straight, white, cisgendered male to keep others down.

Re-examining Viking warrior remains discovers that far more of them were female than originally thought, because the original researchers equated swords with men.

Edit: Also, lol at anthropology. Is there a field with more sexist and especially racist origins? Probably not!

Because of it's origins, we throw out the entire field?

It's gotten much better in recent decades.


mechaPoet wrote:

So essentially what I find problematic in this analysis is that it posits men as the hunters and women as the gatherers, and then points to that division of labor as what gave men access to surplus, profit, and power (as a corruption of the "separate but equal" division).

DJdD wrote:
I don't know about gender binary essentialism, or what that is [. . .]

Basically, gender essentialism is the position that the categories of male and female, of masculine and feminine, etc. exist "naturally," as opposed to being social constructs. In reality, gender is a cultural invention which is presented as an essential, inherent quality of people. There are a lot of implications and consequences of this (for more, see the work of third-wave feminists like Judith Butler), but for now I'll stick with our example here.

I see this explanation of the creation of the family, and its relation to inheritance/marriage/the gender dynamics of class inequality, being portrayed as a corruption of the "natural" egalitarian division of gendered work in the Neolithic era. The problem is that we have no way of knowing how people in the Stone Age conceived of gender, and the supposition of the division between men/women and hunter/gatherers is rooted in a (relatively) contemporary and western concept of the family and the gender binary (the gender binary stating that people are either masculine cis men or feminine cis women). Basically what I'm getting at is that it's entirely possible that people of all genders/sexes in the Neolithic era were both hunters and gatherers, and to say that "women were gatherers [and not hunters] because of biology" is a reflection of the sexist assumptions that the oppressive nuclear family structure created.

It's possible. As far as I know, there's no definitive evidence otherwise. There is a lot of very suggestive circumstantial evidence though. From what we know of hunter-gatherer tribes in more recent times, from examination of remains and other artifacts, it really does look like a general division of labor goes very far back. We are a sexually dimorphic species, if not as extreme as some of our relatives. There is biological stuff behind this.

Edit: Also Nuclear Family is probably not what you meant here. That's a very recent development, contrasted with more extended family structures common up until modern times. And still common in many societies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
ShroudedInLight wrote:
"If it has stats it has HP, and if it has HP it can die"
If you stat it we can kill it.

Just because it can die, doesn't mean you can kill it.


Meager Rolmug wrote:

I'm just going to buy a scroll of "daylight", which is a 3rd level spell(375gp). So against darkness it should "overpower" it in the overlapping area? Or does it dispel(turn off) the darkness altogether if its area includes the object with darkness cast on it?

I believe against deeper darkness it would return the overlapping areas to normal light conditions as they are both 3rd level spells.

The spell level of Daylight is irrelevant.

Quote:
Daylight brought into an area of magical darkness (or vice versa) is temporarily negated, so that the otherwise prevailing light conditions exist in the overlapping areas of effect.

Ask your GM exactly what that means. Spell level definitely has no effect though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Galnörag wrote:
the Lorax wrote:

Without any thoughts on sexuality, your character cant have a family.

You might as well just skip giving your character a name while you're at it.

To paraphrase, you are basically saying anyone who does not invole speciality in their character creation, and game are osstensibly playing the game wrong, and shouldn't bother?

Replace sexuality with any other gaming aspect, like "character optimization" or something else of a disputable nature, and you will find your sentiment unpopular. There isn't one right way to play a given RPG, one builds the game appropriate to the audience.

In our local area we have been forced to adopt a PG13 rating (or better) on our games being run out of store locations as we have received a number of complaints of flagrant harassment, or inappropriate content from players and stores, driving away new players, and closing doors to us.(this was beyond PFS we have a general gaming organization of which PFS shares the same spaces and player base.

The point being that our community co tiniest to thrive and enjoy playing games without a more sexual aspect, and they aren't playing wrong, They are playing appropriately for the audience.

People choosing to go beyond the PG13 rating may still use the general meetup to organize, but they must clearly label their game as such, and provider their own gaming space. They must also treat the players respectfully regardless of the co get of the game, I don't know what the percipitating event that led to us needs g a code of conduct that was both prescriptive, but frankly reasonable obvious, but it was a sad day, and it speaks to the lack of maturity with which some are able to Andre these subjects.

As a possible misunderstanding, you can involve sexuality in your character and your game while staying well within a PG-13 rating. Or even a G one.

Most Disney movies, for example, involve sexuality and often revolve around it. Almost always heterosexuality and rarely anything more explicit than a kiss, but any romance aspect involves sexuality.

*Exceptions to this involving asexual but not aromantic exist, but aren't common in media.


Claxon wrote:
Oil of daylight wouldn't work against Deeper Darkness (I believe), but it would work adequately against Darkness.

Daylight does the same thing against either. It's not clear exactly what that is.

It negates the darkness, rather than raising the light level within it, so the "light spells must be higher level" limitation doesn't apply.


Lifat wrote:
chaoseffect wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
The problem with them is that it may well take some thirty minutes for a barbarian or other tank to heal up fully. Man, that's gonna grate on some nerves.
It gives back 10 HP a minute... I wish my Barbarian had 300 HP.
Yeah... Not really realistic to see a half hour break, but a 15 minute break could easily be needed if you have been taken down to single digit numbers at around lvl 10-12... Which would mean that all min/lvl buffs (and below) are gone. The group I play in often forgo searching rooms to press on while our buffs lasts and then we go back and search the rooms we were in.

Of course, there's nothing to say you couldn't use normal healing anyway. The boots will still cut into the amount you need.

And when you do have time, completely heal you for free.


Hogeyhead wrote:

Now some people don't really care about leveling or gear and they just want to roleplay, and have a few challenging fights here or there. These people are rare. I'm not saying that most people are munchkins, I'm just saying that the mechanics are something that most people who play pathfinder enjoy. If they didn't they would probably be more comfortable in simpler systems that don't have thousands of pages of rules that you need to be at least passingly familiar with.

And if you like a part of a game you want to improve in that area. This encourages people to pursue options that yeild them levels and gear. In pathfinder the way to gain those things is by killing in the vanilla rules.

You see it's not that people automatically make murder hobo's it is that pathfinder mechanically conditions us to pursue that option. This is a flaw of the game. If you don't kill you don't level.

I'd just like to point out that even in Core, experience is given for overcoming challenges, killing is not necessary though it is the most common approach. Story awards are also discussed.


kestral287 wrote:
Saldiven wrote:

If your character truly does have a defined and played out personality that is interesting and entertaining, nobody's going to complain.

The problem is that the vast majority of "murderhobos" (in my experience, and based on opinions posted on threads here) consist of characters with no particular personality, motivation or backstory being played by people who only want to roll dice and see how much damage they did. While that may be tons of fun for that player, it's not terribly interesting for the rest of the group, hence the complaints.

Which is one thing... and not at all what the article says. I think you miss at least one of the core points I'm trying to make (admittedly, this has something to do with the fact that the article author apparently just stopped responding so I haven't had the point to articulate them fully).

The article poses three questions that are supposed to stop a character from being a murderhobo. They fail. Epically. Fantastically. Because I can do two things with those three points I made.

#1. Make a well-written, interesting, fun character that is, by his logic, a murderhobo.

#2. Make a terribly-written boring character that is, by his logic, not a murderhobo.

Let's pull some pieces from the article. For the purposes of my example, Player 1 is following the concept I enumerated earlier (and that thorin labeled as the Great White Hunter. I don't like the name but it is pretty accurate).

Player 2 is a stereotypical murderhobo, but has a (thinly developed) romance with another PC that never really shows up until it's time to buy rooms at the local inn though.

Going through the three questions:

Quote:
Who Are They Connected To?

Player 1's answer is 'nobody', Player 2's answer is their fellow PC.

Quote:


Why Are They Adventuring?

Both of them answer "to kill things"

Quote:
Why Are They In The Party?
Player 1's answer is "because they help kill things". Player 2 can point to this romance....

I suspect, in practice, they don't fail. Yes, it's possible to subvert them and make an interesting character with bad answers who is technically a murderhobo. The real purpose of the questions is to make a player who might not otherwise do so, think about the answers. Your Player 1 has obviously done so, even though he's come up with stereotypical murderhobo answers, he's got reasons behind them. Player 2 hasn't done such a great job. I'd actually push on his reason for adventuring. Well, both of theirs, but Player 1 has an answer. Player 2 apparently doesn't. I'd push on the 3rd question as well, unless the other party in the romance has a good reason, in which case "I'm with her" makes sense.

The other point is the Great White Hunter really isn't that interesting of a character. When used in literature, the point is often to subvert the trope - He becomes interesting when he has to care about something other than killing animals.


LazarX wrote:
So your argument then is that accusation alone is a confirmation of guilt, even if the State does not prove it's case? And the case you're citing as an example, was not a typical law case but an extreme case of the Mondo Bizarro world that celebrity legal cases wind up.

I am saying nothing of the kind. Nor am I citing any particular case as an example. It's not that rare of a tactic.

Beyond that, I'm taking Chris's advice and backing away from this thread. Hopefully we can leave this thread alive. There's been some very good discussion in it in the past.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Saying that you presume Cosby to be innocent until proven guilty is equivalent to saying you presume those b&#~~es to be lying until proven truthful.

Only in the sense that my saying I don't know if it's raining outside is equivalent to my saying that I believe it's not raining.

I.e. -- not at all. I'm sure there are even less accurate statements you could have made, but you would have had to work quite hard at it.

More like you've had a bunch of people come by and tell you it's raining outside, but when asked you just say "I have no evidence it's raining"
Well, there's the "even less accurate statement" that I was concerned about. How hard did you have to work to make it?

Not very. It really seems to follow directly from the claim that statements aren't evidence.

Mind you, in this hypothetical, Saying "I haven't checked, but some people have said it is", would be more fair. Neglecting the evidence that does exist, even if it's far from conclusive, bothers me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Saying that you presume Cosby to be innocent until proven guilty is equivalent to saying you presume those b&#~~es to be lying until proven truthful.

Only in the sense that my saying I don't know if it's raining outside is equivalent to my saying that I believe it's not raining.

I.e. -- not at all. I'm sure there are even less accurate statements you could have made, but you would have had to work quite hard at it.

More like you've had a bunch of people come by and tell you it's raining outside, but when asked you just say "I have no evidence it's raining"
The big difference is that in the latter case, it's very easy to prove whether or not it is raining outside. (That's what windows are for) On the other hand accusations of a crime committed in a date prior to the Statue of Limitations are untestable because no trial will be forthcoming. What these accusations serve to do is to promote a perpetual untestable cloud of uncertainty.

That's certainly true. It's often easy to see if it's raining. Though if you have to interrupt something even to go see if you need to close your car windows, it would be foolish to do so if there's absolutely no evidence that it's raining. And since people's statements are absolutely no evidence...

Do you contend then that after the Statute of Limitations has expired victims should not come forward? That if they do, everyone should ignore and dismiss them?
Does that include people who might be at risk of the same crime if the accusations are true? Are they required to ignore them as well?

And even a trial does not prove the accused didn't commit the crime. It simply says it couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This is clearly shown in our legal system when a defendant is found Not Guilty in a criminal case, but liable in a civil lawsuit where the standard is the Preponderance of the Evidence. Given that my opinion will do far less harm than even the civil case, I do not think I need to be held to a higher standard.


Sissyl wrote:

Iceman, Marvel Girl, Beast, Angel and Cyclops were the first generation, no? Second is Storm, Colossus, Wolverine, Cyclops, Nightcrawler etc. After that it becomes far more difficult. Maggot and Marrow were far, far later - and as younger characters, not completely overdeveloped yet, they were more interesting to read about. I guess I could have phrased that better.

Another point to consider is that there are so utterly many characters in the Marvel universe by now. There certainly wouldn't have been a lack of characters to put in as children if they had wanted to.

Ok, that makes more sense.

Maggot and Marrow never really interested me, but I'd gave up following the X-Men seriously around their time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Saying that you presume Cosby to be innocent until proven guilty is equivalent to saying you presume those b&#~~es to be lying until proven truthful.

Only in the sense that my saying I don't know if it's raining outside is equivalent to my saying that I believe it's not raining.

I.e. -- not at all. I'm sure there are even less accurate statements you could have made, but you would have had to work quite hard at it.

More like you've had a bunch of people come by and tell you it's raining outside, but when asked you just say "I have no evidence it's raining"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:

Ah yes, Trial by Media. I'm sure Ben Franklin would approve. Why bother with things such as evidence, corrobative witnesses, (33 women making 33 separative accusations are not corrobative), or any of that complicated mess.

There are a lot of factors here, race most assuredly being one of them, considering how Cosby is being treated as opposed to Clinton.

I refuse to pass judgement because I can't see the worth, the virtue, or the utility of doing so, unless condemning a man without evidence, solely on the number of accusers is becoming a new standard of jurisprudence. I also recognize my own prejudices in how they interact with how I perceive the totality of this case.

People get to have opinions. As long as the trial by media doesn't affect an actual legal trial (civil or criminal), it's certainly our right.

My passing judgement will have absolutely no affect on Mr. Cosby. I haven't watched or purchased anything he's been involved with in decades. I do not feel obligated to avoid drawing any conclusions from what I've heard, though I also retain the right to change my opinion should I learn of other evidence.

If the 33 accusations are in fact separate, not copycat accusations, they do go a long way to suggest a pattern. It's rare for that many people to spontaneously make false accusations, over a period of decades. I'll stress again that's not enough, by itself to actually convict and punish him. It would be more than enough for me to advise any women I knew to avoid getting in similar situations with him - not that I know anyone who's likely to.

Nor do I really get the comparison to Clinton. The differences between the cases go far beyond skin color. The earlier mention of Letterman would be a much better one, I think.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:

Considering what rape victims, either female or male, are subjected to when they make an accusation of this nature, and the way that nearly everyone, as observed in this thread, bend over backwards to defend the accused, just having the courage to come forward with an accusation is a bit of a point in favor of the credibility of the statements.

My principle is to believe the victim unless a reason is apparent that they should not be believed. Cosby doesn't lose much by me refusing to watch his shows, buy his albums, or buy jello pudding pops, mostly because I already didn't. I'm not going to be on the jury, and the most harm (if it is harm) I'll do is that I might convince someone who isn't currently convinced one way or another.

There is no virtue in refraining from judgement in a matter like this, except insofar as you are involved in law enforcement or legal proceedings associated with the matter. Saying that you presume Cosby to be innocent until proven guilty is equivalent to saying you presume those b@*$!es to be lying until proven truthful.

Not buying his products isn't convicting him of a crime. Organizing a boycott isn't convicting him of a crime.

As for the argument that these women are trying to cash in by accusing a celebrity, there are thousands of rich men out there. Very few of them have 33 people accusing them of rape. Even if you bring race into it, which, I must acknowledge, is a fraught situation with a history of false rape accusations by white women against black men, there are still thousands of rich black men out there, very few of which have 33 people accusing them of rape.

I get to say, I think he's a rapist. I get to say, I believe these women. People insisting that we can't make any judgement are verging on rape apology, in my opinion.

The intersection of race and gender here does make it complicated. Rape accusations are generally dismissed, but as you say, such allegations against a black man are far more dangerous.

I like to think I'd be saying the same thing regardless of his race, but we might well not even be talking about in that case.


Sissyl wrote:

This is why I said I wanted to see characters age. Honestly, it has been positively ages since any of the second generation of X-men had any particular character growth in the stories. My experience ended a few years ago, but at that point they were cardboard roles and unchanging since forever. Typecasting? If you go back to the first generation, it was even more terrible. Maggot, Marrow, a few others were interesting and changed. So... it really isn't about how good characters would be rebooted, it is about stupid rehashing of characters that used to be good.

New characters taking mantles of the old, making new groups, changing loyalties, new personalities, different views of the old struggles, new fights, all these things could be had if only Marvel wasn't so frightened of not using their favourite old timers.

Just out of curiosity, who are you considering the second generation of X-Men?

I'm reading that as Maggot and Marrow were first, which seems completely off to me. They'd be well after 2nd, from my point of view.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Some stories are cool, but often the coolness is mitigated by frequent writer turnover and an overbearing urge to undo what the previous writer has done. The taking over of Spider-Man's body by Otto Octavius was a genius move, but a large portion of readers whined so hard about it that they lamely undid this.

That's simply untrue. There's no way the Superior Spider-man storyline wasn't intended to be a limited thing from the very beginning. They didn't undo it because readers whined, they undid it because they'd told what they wanted to tell except for the part where Parker comes back.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

That's the problem with Marvel I came to realize. How long am I going to keep reading about Peter Parker, an unkillable yet likeable fellow who has amazing physical powers but no matter what, will live another day? I've been at it for 30 years and there's no way I'll just read the same thing over and over and over again for another 30...

The comic has been overdone; the movies are overdone; the toys have been overdone; I'm afraid that Spider-Man is a good indicator of the death of the Marvel universe: like Spider-Man, it's been overdone, and needs to die. The beancounters have milked the cow dry and are now slaughtering it for parts.

Problem with this: the *new* Marvel universe will no doubt be a rehash of the "old" Marvel, complete with the same boring origin stories.

As for Peter, he kept you reading for 30 years. That's a damn good run. I bet there are a lot of characters who didn't hold your attention that long. Maybe it's time for you to move on?

Meanwhile, there are a lot of readers who haven't been following Peter for 30 years. Maybe he hasn't worn out for them yet? Why demand he go away and they lose their chance to enjoy him?


EltonJ wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:
k3ndawg wrote:
When a story is written, not one moment should be spent on race/sex/political considerations. It should just be a story, told without agenda. Just as we should read these stories, without our own agendas.

I disagree with this.

Firstly, if you are not consciously considering rac/sex/politics then your subconsious assumptions and biases will come through. Race/sex/politics will still be there, it just won't be deliberate.

Our subconscious was created to be perfect. They (our subconsciouses) foundationalized to have compassion towards one another. The base assumptions came through the programming we received from our Earthly parents. You have to be carefully taught to hate gays, to hate blacks, and to hate politics that don't agree with yours.

Basically, your confusing subconscious feelings with our conscious feelings which is often indoctrinated in the first place. I don't usually write according to the dictates of my subconscious (except for my porn), but I do write according to my indoctrination.

Indoctrination can still be subconscious. If you've been carefully taught, mostly by examples in fiction and other sources throughout your children, rather than by being explicitly told, that women are homemakers and men are the warriors and adventurers, the stories you write are going to reflect that, not because you consciously decide that women aren't fit for it, but because you don't even think about putting women in the heroic roles.

Similarly with all the other stereotypes and prejudices we absorb with our culture. If you're not actively, consciously trying, it's very easy to slip into acting on them or echoing them in your work.

Another less charged example: Writing fiction set in a different culture (fantasy, historical, or just geographic distance) - without conscious effort you'll write in a modern cultural voice, reflecting your own assumptions and prejudices, not those of the time and place you're supposed to be writing about. Those are subconscious assumptions coming out, not conscious ones.


EltonJ wrote:

After reading Thor #4, I came to the conclusion that Lady Thor can be only one woman:

The Enchantress.

I haven't read #4 yet, so there may well be evidence that would change my mind, but from what I have read, her interior (thought bubble) voice doesn't match the Enchantress. Or any Asgardian, really. Going just by that, I'm assuming she's mortal.

Of course, something could have happened to the Enchantress since the last time I saw anything about her.


Sissyl wrote:

No, but unless you have more than the number of accusations to go on, and you smear him for it, that's disgusting.

You're the one playing semantic games, thejeff. You are the one saying, basically, "where there's smoke, there's fire", trying to justify this by claiming statements themselves have evidence value.

I still fundamentally don't understand what you mean by saying they don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
I dismiss the idea of counting the number of accusations and thereby condemning him. The accusations themselves ("he raped me") are without value as evidence, but the rest they have said may well include information that is valid as evidence.

And we're back to either dismissing them (but not saying they're lying) or semantic games about evidence.

If you mean "condemn" in the legal sense, then no one is saying that. If you mean "condemn" by thinking he's likely a rapist, then I don't need to hold to legal standards to do so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
houstonderek wrote:

That's the thing. I like to play games where the dice mean something. And, sometimes, they mean a "crappy" death.

If I wanted to script a death, I'd write a screenplay.

That's what you want. That's not what everyone wants.

Dismissing what other people want from the game with "I'd write a screenplay" isn't helpful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Well, I'd say it's detailed enough to compare to other cases, perhaps to check modus operandi or the like, but there is very little beyond "hotel in Reno" and "Manhattan townhouse" that is going to be verifiable. If they do have stories attached to the accusations, I am sure the courts will be able to figure something out.

No, I am not saying they are lying. I am saying the accusations mean nothing in and of themselves, and things like

Irontruth wrote:

For the moment, let's assume that half of the women coming forward are lying, and half are telling the truth. I'll even give him the benefit of the doubt and round it in his favor. That means 17 women have lied, while he's raped or sexually assaulted the other 16 of them.

I'm not a big fan of people who have raped one person, let alone 16. So no, I'm not really interested in hearing him talk.
are downright sad. What Irontruth is saying here is that the number of accusations by itself is evidence of something.

So you're still saying that the statements themselves are not evidence, but they could provide information that could theoretically be turned into evidence? Contrary to what you said before, that has nothing to do with the credibility of the witnesses.

So, you're not saying they're lying, but you also completely dismiss what they say happened.

Again, I'm not claiming the stories themselves provide sufficient evidence for a conviction, but the simple fact that so many women have come forward does raise my suspicions about Cosby far above where they would be if no accusations had been made.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:


However, if I had 33 witnesses...that would be a VERY different story. I'd only need ONE authentic case, because with 33 witnesses, I would have a LOT more to work with.

You'd still need one authentic case. 33 chances makes that more likely, but you're still going to need to prove that one case independent of the 32 others. At least one will need physical evidence or other witnesses or something to actually win. That one will of course have to have occurred somewhere the statute of limitations hasn't expired. And you're going to have to win against a very high priced legal team.


Sissyl wrote:

I attach no credibility AT ALL to the statements themselves. They are merely declarations of some kind of intent. Now, if there is more than "he raped me", anything you could use to determine what happened, that is evidence. The statements remain without value as evidence.

What this means is you can't use the accusations themselves as evidence of anything whatsoever. If the accusations are more substantial, such as detailed and verifiable, that is another thing.

Are you saying that "Bill Cosby raped me" is not evidence, but this is

Description of sexual assault/rape:
"It was in a hotel in Reno, claims Bowman, that Cosby assaulted her one night in 1986. 'He took my hand and his hand over it, and he masturbated with his hand over my hand,' says Bowman, who, although terrified, kept quiet about the incident and continued as Cosby's protégé because, she says, 'Who's gonna believe this? He was a powerful man. He was like the president.' Before long she was alone with Cosby again in his Manhattan townhouse; she was given a glass of red wine, and "the next thing I know, I'm sick and I'm nauseous and I'm delusional and I'm limp and ... I can't think straight.... And I just came to, and I'm wearing a [men's] T-shirt that wasn't mine, and he was in a white robe.'"

Because that's not at all the distinction I thought you (or Lemmy) were making.
For the record, yes, there is much more detail in many if not all of the accusations. Not all public at this point, but some it is. I've just been mentioning "33 women accused him of rape" as a shorthand, instead of describing each of the accusations in detail.


Sissyl wrote:

Nuh uh. Statement != evidence. No matter what.

If someone tells you it's raining outside, it is still their credibility in your eyes that determines if you assign any form of weight to that statement.

And there's no default credibility at all? I just don't understand this line of argument.

Going back to the actual case: 30+ women accusing Bill Cosby of rape is no evidence at all? It doesn't raise the slightest bit of doubt, that you wouldn't have had if the accusations weren't made?

I'm not talking about weighing those statements against his statement and concluding they're wrong. Or weighing them against your impression of his character and concluding they're wrong. Or even comparing with the racist accusations of rape against black men and dismissing them on those grounds. Or considering the possibility of a profit motive too high to take them seriously.
All of those I would consider weighing evidence against other evidence to reach a conclusion. Some more justifiably than others.

You don't know those women, so I assume you don't have personal reasons to distrust them. I doubt you've studied all their statements in enough depth to conclude on an individual basis that each accusation is internally inconsistent or otherwise flawed.
Is it just that, absent some specific reason to trust someone, you give them no credibility at all?

Mind you, I'm not saying that's sufficient evidence for a conviction, even if the statute of limitations didn't apply.


Jerrum Mallex wrote:
Tim Statler wrote:
Jerrum Mallex wrote:

I'm a new player to Pathfinder, just spend a small fortune buying most of the books that can be used for PFS. I hope that PFS doesn't start going the route of just the core book. Doing this to introduce new players/dms is understandable and great.

But if it becomes more and more the norm for all of society play, then I'll be selling off all the books I've bought and not buying anything more from Paizo or playing.

Jerrum; You don't have to sell any of your books. CORE is not replacing Regular Society, it is supplementing it.

If you don't want to play CORE, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to.
I doubt there is a single organizer that is planning to completely replace regular play with CORE.

First off you tell me I don't have to sell my books off and then say "If you don't want to play CORE, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to."

I thought this board was for discussing things. I'm not looking for or trying to start a fight/flame war but I don't appreciate that comment, I'm not stupid, so please don't talk to me like I am.

So far I'm been lucky to have some really good gm's, who have used all the things allowed in society play, as I've learned so far.
I just stated that if core goes the way of the norm in my city then what "I" will do.

I think the response is basically that it's very unlikely that CORE will dominate so much that you won't be able to find Normal games. There are quite a few people who've bought plenty of books and love using all the options.

Anything's possible, but the chances are slim enough I wouldn't worry much about it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Pretty odd ones if a statement itself is evidence, to be honest. The evidence for what witnesses say (the evidence for their statements) lies in the trustworthiness of their descriptions and so on. Taking their statements by themselves is no evidence of anything. By the way, thejeff, I happen to need to move a large sum of money internationally, and if you would just help me pay the fees for doing so, I would give you 10% of the total sum. :-)

I never said it was good evidence.

The credibility of the witnesses is evidence of the truth of their statements. The statements themselves remain evidence. If all you had was a witness who was completely trustworthy, but didn't actually make a statement about the case, there would still be no evidence.

If a total stranger walked up to me in my inside office and told me it was starting to rain, I'd consider that at least evidence enough to go check to see if I needed to close my car windows. Without that evidence, I'd have no reason to even look.
Now if it was someone I trusted or if he was soaked or carrying a wet umbrella, it would be stronger evidence.


Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
EDIT: That said, I am all for the volunteer military the US has, where one does NOT have to go to war or be involved with the vigors of conflict if one does not choose to be. Freedom of choice is a wonderful thing to have, and something that every American should be greatful to possess.

Bear in mind that it's basically a lie though.

It's possible because we have massive technological superiority and haven't needed to throw bodies at an enemy since we switched to an all volunteer force. If we did, we'd have a draft again in a matter of weeks, regardless of all the talk about how the volunteer army is so much better. Technological changes may keep that from happening.

In the height of the Iraq War, the stop-loss policy was used to extend soldier's terms of service past their expected end dates. That was commonly called a back-door draft. The heavy reliance on reserve and national guard forces for overseas deployment, which was not really what any of those soldiers signed up for and not how they'd historically been used, was another way of expanding the military without actually using a draft.

There is also a very strong class component to it. Poor people volunteer to join the army in greater numbers not because they're more patriotic or whatever other jingoistic reason people want to claim, but because it's a better practical choice - in some cases the only practical choice.

once the bolded started happening, I started getting seriously suspicious about the war in general.

Didn't really change my opinions about the war, though they may have already be more suspicious than yours.

Just a natural consequence of trying to sustain a major deployment without a draft.
And this was still small scale by historical standards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

We accept people's words because we don't have the time and/or resources to check everything. Or because we believe those people are trustworthy.

But when judging someone, a simple accusation is not evidence. It doesn't indicates anything to be true.

It might be considered evidence by the court, but at that point we are discussing semantics. It doesn't change the fact that a simple statement doesn't really indicate anything.

OK. we have to be purely in semantics territory at this point.


Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:

It's not proof. It may not even be good evidence. People can in fact lie. It still remains evidence. It should of course be weighed against any contradictory evidence.

Testimony is evidence. Witness testimony, the statements of the accuser and the accused they are all evidence. Along with any physical evidence. Evidence is not just physical evidence, whether we're speaking in strictly legal terms or in more common everyday ones.

Statements are not evidence of a crime or an event. They are evidence that someone wants the authorities to put you on trial.

And just jumping back to this for a second: The vast majority of those accusations will not lead to trial due to the statute of limitations. Even for civil suits.

It's possible that the accusers are going public without realizing this or that they somehow want the authorities to put him on trial anyway, but if they've talked to a lawyer, they should know that's not going to happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

I know the difference between evidence and proof. But it seems we have different definitions of evidence, then...

Evidence is something that indicates that something is true.

Someone saying something is true doesn't do that.

And yet, in both real life and the legal system, we treat it as if it does.

Witness statements, including the alleged victim and the defendant's testimony are treated as evidence. Weighing the credibility of such testimony is an important part of a jury's job, along with deciding how well the testimony fits with the physical evidence.

We also accept people's statements as indicating something to be true all the time in normal life. Do you really think that what people say doesn't even indicate truth? That there is no truth value whatsoever in people's statements?
Obviously people can lie or be mistaken and their statements can be contradicted by other more direct evidence, but they still can provide an indication of the truth. If you were working in an interior office and someone came in and told you it was starting to rain, you would just ignore it and leave your car windows open, because his statement wasn't even an indication? You wouldn't at least check? Assuming the person wasn't known as a practical joker or compulsive liar or some such.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

Sorry, replace "statement" with "accusation" in my last post. I changed my post midway and forgot to change that particular word.

Anyway, simply saying that something is true is no evidence of said something being true. It's evidence that you want others to believe something is true.

If an accusation is considered evidence, then a claim of innocence is just as valid as evidence, making the whole point moot.

Of course a claim of innocence is also evidence. That's why you look at all the pieces of evidence you have and weigh them against each other.

Evidence is not proof. It's just evidence.
Even physical evidence isn't proof.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:

It's not proof. It may not even be good evidence. People can in fact lie. It still remains evidence. It should of course be weighed against any contradictory evidence.

Testimony is evidence. Witness testimony, the statements of the accuser and the accused they are all evidence. Along with any physical evidence. Evidence is not just physical evidence, whether we're speaking in strictly legal terms or in more common everyday ones.

Statements are not evidence of a crime or an event. They are evidence that someone wants the authorities to put you on trial.

That doesn't even make sense.

Would those same statements made in the trial be evidence?

Are you saying that only physical evidence is actual evidence?
Would corroborating statements by other witnesses be evidence?

Would, in this case, Bill Cosby saying "I never met that woman" be evidence? It's a statement, but it certainly isn't "evidence that someone wants the authorities to put you on trial."

Are we just debating semantics or is there some larger issue here? Cause I'll stop if it's just semantics.


Chris Mortika wrote:
I stopped reading Spider-Man 6 years ago in disgust. Reversing BND would possibly bring me back.

I'm sure there are others who share that opinion.

OTOH, it was 6 years ago. Spider-man remains one of their better selling titles, I believe. There are a lot of people reading now who might be upset by rebooting the Spider-Man they've been following. They've apparently been able to tell good stories in the years following BND, however bad it was.

Apparently, based on MMCJawa's link, they're planning on doing this. Maybe they'll come up with a clean way to pull it off. More likely it'll have all the forseeable problems of any reboot. We'll likely have no clear idea how it all worked out or what's happened in the time in between. Even if they bring back the marriage, I doubt they'll have everyone remember that Parker is Spider-man or get rid of Aunt May.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
An accusation is very definitely evidence. It's not proof, but it is evidence.

It really isn't...

At most, it's evidence that someone wants you to face trial. It's no evidence of an actual crime. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything.

It's not proof. It may not even be good evidence. People can in fact lie. It still remains evidence. It should of course be weighed against any contradictory evidence.

Testimony is evidence. Witness testimony, the statements of the accuser and the accused they are all evidence. Along with any physical evidence. Evidence is not just physical evidence, whether we're speaking in strictly legal terms or in more common everyday ones.


Fergurg wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Judge it how you want. I have no interest in discussing it with you further. I'm under no obligation to discuss it, nor defend it.

You brought it up. You were trying to prove a point, which is why you brought it up. Do you have a legal obligation to explain what you are talking about? No. But you do have a "not an a-hole" obligation to explain what you are talking about when someone specifically asks for an explanation about a subject you brought up.

Irontruth wrote:

I'm sorry, I got it wrong. So far his defense has been to..

1) Say nothing
2) Settle out of court

So no, we haven't heard his side of the story. Watching the AP interview from early November, he seems to be employing the strategy of non-engagement and hoping it goes away.

That means the ONLY evidence we have right now is the claims of these 33 women. We have their word on this, including the fact that 13 of them were willing to testify in court as witnesses, even though they had no connection to the suit, nor would they gain from it monetarily.

There has literally been no evidence presented that would point towards his innocence.

I'm willing to hear his defense, but that means he has to put one forward.

An accusation is not evidence, so we don't have any evidence at all; only assertions made.

An accusation is very definitely evidence. It's not proof, but it is evidence.

On similar lines, his denial would also be evidence, if he'd made one. Again not proof, but evidence.

Unless you're only willing to consider testimony in court as evidence, which is just a semantics game.


MMCJawa wrote:
I think it's more likely they are just going to reverse a few unpopular decisions (Spiderman's deal with the devil), while bringing in some popular Ultimate/One-off characters. I don't think they plan on ditching the new characters, especially popular ones like Kamala Khan.

I doubt they'll actually reverse the Brand New Day thing, though they may downplay it somehow. It's been 6 years, another reversal with "Peter and MJ really have been married all this time" just makes things uglier. (Especially with the Superior Spider-man.)

And now everybody retroactively hasn't forgotten Peter Parker is Spider-man?

Blech. As much as that was a stupid decision, it would bad to reverse it again.


Undone wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
Undone wrote:
graywulfe wrote:
Undone wrote:
It's funny to me how much non Core stuff is required to make "Core Only" Characters capable of adventuring.
No one has suggested those things are needed to be capable of adventuring. NO ONE, PERIOD. Please try to respond to peoples actual posts as opposed to whatever you cook up in your imagination.
You mean besides wayfinders, traits, and languages which fundamentally alter how several adventures play.

Way finders are already part of CORE. They are in the Guide. so yeah that is irrelevant to this discussion.

Also now you have moved the goal posts. You claimed that Non-Core stuff was required to be capable of adventuring, or rather implied that people were claiming this. Now you are talking about how several of these alter how certain adventures play out. If you can not see the difference between those two things then there is no point in this discussion.

Both wayfinders and traits are not part of the CRB.

They're not in the Core Rulebook, but both the Character Traits Web Enhancement, and Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play are allowed in the CORE PFS Campaign. Wayfinders are apparently in the latter and traits obviously in the first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
In the US it HAS been, innocent until proven guilty until recently...

It has never been "innocent until proven guilty". It is innocent until accused by the State. Then you can be jailed for several years. The entire Grand Jury system is directly against innocent until proven guilty.

There is no functional presumption of innocence in the US legal system.

And even in theory it doesn't apply to "Now you can be tried and convicted in the media for crimes before you even have a trial", unless that prejudices your actual trial.

Nor has it ever. Presumption of innocence applies to the actual legal system. It doesn't apply anywhere else. Again, even in theory.

Nor is trial in the media anything like a new phenomenon.


GregH wrote:

First I think it helps us identify with her. If they played it completely straight, and she didn't have any problems with it, then there would be no-one to cheer for as it were (or maybe half-heatedly).

I also think we are supposed to see her as one of the first "modern women" of the time. Heck maybe she was the "First Avenger" - not Cap - avenging women of all the crap they had to deal with back then. (Or is that stretching it a bit?!?!)

Not the first.

There were certainly women upset about sexist work environments before things changed enough for it to be common. Right after WWII, when many women had taken on traditionally male roles while so many men were away fighting, it was fairly common for those being pushed back into traditional women's roles to be frustrated by it.

That's not quite her situation, I think, but not too far off either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

I don't know what to say, really... Except "damages".

It would be a better world without ambulance chasers, frivolous lawsuits, legal opportunists and such people, but they do exist, and wherever they can get money is where they will be.

Many daggers find a falling camel's back. Of course, it is quite possible he did do those things, but if so, the courts will have to decide, not the general public.

No duh. Even for the "damages".

Or more accurately only for the damages, if those are even possible now, since the statute of limitations has passed, I believe. At least for most of them.

OTOH, as I said above, for those of us not involved in determining legal guilt or legal civil responsibility, we have to rely on our own judgement and our own standards to determine how we respond to such allegations. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. Outside of it, we are and should be free to judge as we see fit.

Judge, then. How about jury and executioner, is that also up to you as you see fit, thejeff?

In a strictly non-legal, but within the law sense of the terms, that would of course prohibit a literal interpretation of "executioner", yes. I might for example, boycott a business or a person's work. Or stop associating with them, if I knew them personally. Warn others of my concerns, especially mutual acquaintances.

I would not attack them physically, kidnap them and imprison them, attempt to kill them, steal money from them or any other punishments that are the province of the legal system.

Are you arguing we should put all moral judgement into the hands of the legal system and make no judgements, decisions or even consequences outside of it?

1 to 50 of 16,017 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.