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

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

I'm Christian, Unless You're Gay


Off-Topic Discussions

451 to 500 of 1,199 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

Mr. O'Brien, RM 101 wrote:
Irontruth wrote:


I don't believe in 2+2=4. I know 2+2=4.
Silly Prole: 2+2=5

Given sufficient quantity of 2 yes.


2+2=chicken

Scarab Sages Dedicated Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
feytharn wrote:
ciretose wrote:
[ It would be like fleas worshiping us, because we provide them food and warmth. Relative to them, we are "gods". But we certainly are not worthy of worship,and are incapable of providing rewards in another life.

Aren't we? - As you wrote, we provide food and warmth, and a home for another generation of fleas - which may, if fleas believe in reincarnation, well be an afterlife - they might even hope to become (again reincarnation) like us,themselves. If they act carelessly, we act against them and destroy them, their families and their future.

To them that could be worthy of worship.
And that worship would be pointless, since we aren't gods.

I marked a part of your quote.

Point of view does matter in your example.
We are not gods to ourselfs (even there, some religions might differ).
We do not think of ourselfs as worthy of worship (even there, religions might differ)


Hey, two plus two equals--wait a second...


Two plus two equals whatever the party says it equals!

Vive le Galt!

Liberty's Edge

2+2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

It equals what we say it equals.

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

feytharn wrote:


Point of view does matter in your example.
We are not gods to ourselfs (even there, some religions might differ).
We do not think of ourselfs as worthy of worship (even there, religions might differ)

Quite to the contrary, what we ascribe to our "Gods" is exactly what matters.

Many very powerful people can have great effects on my life, but they are not gods.

Many used to worship the sun. And in a sense all life on earth existed because of the sun, so if you are picking something that has an impact on your life, the sun is a pretty good choice.

But worshiping the sun is as pointless as worshiping the ocean. And reasonable people would agree the sun is not a "God" or if you are monotheistic, the "God".

For prayer or worship to matter, it has to be able to have an effect

The flea worshiping the man is as foolish as the man worshiping the sun.

Scarab Sages Dedicated Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

You have a very narrow view of 'religion', making it hard (at least for me) to show you why your assesments might be wrong. (prayer does not require an effect in all religions, worship does not aspire effects in all religions, not all religions have antropomorhic deities etc.)
Sorry. As I said before, I have no intention of spending the necessary amount of work to give you an overview over different religions and religious views. If you are interested in that, there are countless books (I am not taklking about religious books but books abou religions) and webpages dedicated to comparative religions and to to single religions.


There are religions out there that accept gays as being OK, so a gay person with free will can just follow one of those open minded faiths.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darkwing Duck wrote:
So, the foundation of science rests in a useful fiction?

That's a lot better than the alternative, which is resting on less useful fiction, or on totally useless fiction. Scientists don't peddle "The Truth(TM)" -- we leave that to the preachers. We deal with describing how things work, with as much predictability as possible, knowing in advance it won't be 100%.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Leafar the Lost wrote:
There are religions out there that accept gays as being OK, so a gay person with free will can just follow one of those open minded faiths.

What does he do when the close minded faiths tell him he can't marry his partner?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Leafar the Lost wrote:
There are religions out there that accept gays as being OK, so a gay person with free will can just follow one of those open minded faiths.
What does he do when the close minded faiths tell him he can't marry his partner?

Do it anyway?


So, along the same lines as "I'm Christian, Unless You're Gay"
I'm tolerant, unless you're stupid.

At least my "religion" actually has my back in my statement, whereas Jesus most certainly didn't stutter :)

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

Jesus is cool. His beliefs are wonderful. I love christians who actually follow the tenets of what he taught.

It is the old testament cherry pickers who piss me off.


ciretose wrote:

Jesus is cool. His beliefs are wonderful. I love christians who actually follow the tenets of what he taught.

It is the old testament cherry pickers who piss me off.

Indeed.

Liberty's Edge

ciretose wrote:

Jesus is cool. His beliefs are wonderful. I love christians who actually follow the tenets of what he taught.

It is the old testament cherry pickers who piss me off.

There's plenty of bad in the new testament as well. But yes, Jesus himself was a pretty cool dude. He and I could've been buds.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

ciretose wrote:

Jesus is cool. His beliefs are wonderful. I love christians who actually follow the tenets of what he taught.

It is the old testament cherry pickers who piss me off.

More like cherry-pickers in general; religious or otherwise.


Jiggy wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Jesus is cool. His beliefs are wonderful. I love christians who actually follow the tenets of what he taught.

It is the old testament cherry pickers who piss me off.

More like cherry-pickers in general; religious or otherwise.

My relatives picked cherries in Door County* and it made them a GOOD LIVING. Now you're just discriminating! Bigot!

*not really.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

meatrace wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Jesus is cool. His beliefs are wonderful. I love christians who actually follow the tenets of what he taught.

It is the old testament cherry pickers who piss me off.

More like cherry-pickers in general; religious or otherwise.

My relatives picked cherries in Door County* and it made them a GOOD LIVING. Now you're just discriminating! Bigot!

*not really.

Pfft, the only pie worth eating is chocolate pie. Cherries are for losers.


Jiggy wrote:
meatrace wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Jesus is cool. His beliefs are wonderful. I love christians who actually follow the tenets of what he taught.

It is the old testament cherry pickers who piss me off.

More like cherry-pickers in general; religious or otherwise.

My relatives picked cherries in Door County* and it made them a GOOD LIVING. Now you're just discriminating! Bigot!

*not really.

Pfft, the only pie worth eating is chocolate pie. Cherries are for losers.

Chocolate pie? You sir are a heretic! The one true pie is banana cream!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Hey, we could go somewhere with this pie idea:

Lots of different people preaching different pies, some people using pies only as weapons to throw in people's faces, some people saying pies don't exist (with a subset saying they're willing to believe there's some sweetness in the universe that they haven't otherwise explained), some people eating pie only when their parents are around, etc etc etc...

;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
ShadowcatX wrote:


There's plenty of bad in the new testament as well. But yes, Jesus himself was a pretty cool dude. He and I could've been buds.

I don't think he and I would get along. However I do have a thing for nice Jewish boys so I could see maybe mutually agreed upon fun time sex.

Scarab Sages

Samnell wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


There's plenty of bad in the new testament as well. But yes, Jesus himself was a pretty cool dude. He and I could've been buds.
I don't think he and I would get along. However I do have a thing for nice Jewish boys so I could see maybe mutually agreed upon fun time sex.

Yeah, don't think that'd happen :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Davor wrote:
Samnell wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


There's plenty of bad in the new testament as well. But yes, Jesus himself was a pretty cool dude. He and I could've been buds.
I don't think he and I would get along. However I do have a thing for nice Jewish boys so I could see maybe mutually agreed upon fun time sex.
Yeah, don't think that'd happen :P

Dude wandered around in the desert for YEARS with no one but 12 guys to keep him company.

Just sayin...

Liberty's Edge

meatrace wrote:
Davor wrote:
Samnell wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


There's plenty of bad in the new testament as well. But yes, Jesus himself was a pretty cool dude. He and I could've been buds.
I don't think he and I would get along. However I do have a thing for nice Jewish boys so I could see maybe mutually agreed upon fun time sex.
Yeah, don't think that'd happen :P

Dude wandered around in the desert for YEARS with no one but 12 guys to keep him company.

Just sayin...

Actually, that's not true. His ministry was 3-4 years and the majority of that time was spent teaching large numbers of people in various urban areas.


Plus, there was that Mary Magdalene chick...


ShadowcatX wrote:


Actually, that's not true. His ministry was 3-4 years and the majority of that time was spent teaching large numbers of people in various urban areas.

Let's see, 3-4 years don't count as years? Is that what you're saying?

Or are you saying that palestine doesn't count as a desert?
Or that he didn't have apostles?
/boggle

Liberty's Edge

meatrace wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


Actually, that's not true. His ministry was 3-4 years and the majority of that time was spent teaching large numbers of people in various urban areas.

Let's see, 3-4 years don't count as years? Is that what you're saying?

Or are you saying that palestine doesn't count as a desert?
Or that he didn't have apostles?
/boggle

No, I'm saying that major metropolitan areas don't count as "no one to keep him company". Nor do the crowds that generally followed him count as such.

Now please, quit trying to straw man.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 , Marathon Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014, Star Voter 2015

Apparently, he had only 12 guys to keep him company while multiplying food to feed thousands at his feet. ;)

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Plus, there was that Mary Magdalene chick...

Once you go GOD, you never go back.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Plus, there was that Mary Magdalene chick...

I wouldn't begrudge him a beard and/or would have happy fun time sex with a bisexual.

Liberty's Edge

Davor wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Plus, there was that Mary Magdalene chick...
Once you go GOD, you never go back.

That reminds me of a billboard I saw a picture of. It read something like "Poor Joseph had a hard time competing."

Edit: "Poor Joseph. God was a hard act to follow."

Here


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
Now please, quit trying to straw man.

Seriously, what straw man? What are you even talking about? I was making a joke. A JOKE. Let's nitpick factual inaccuracies in JOKES now.

Hey there mister, I don't think that chicken DID cross the road. And what you say about your friend from Nantucket defies reason!

Liberty's Edge

Science called. There's this thing called in vitro fertilization. Sex is no longer required to reproduce.

Secondly, being an "evolutionary dead end" is only a matter of importance if it is wide spread enough to endanger the race.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paul DiAndrea wrote:
Any creature in nature that cannot reproduce is considered an evolutionary dead end.

Evolution works at the species level, in terms of allele frequencies. It's not an individual thing. Non-reproducing bee drones aren't dead ends, because they promote the survival (and thus propogation) of the genes of the rest of the hive.

The reference to bees is intentional, insofar as drones aren't genetically different; they're simply given a different diet while developing as larvae. Likewise, there doesn't seem to be a gene for homosexuality; rather, prenatal hormone exposure may be responsible, at least in large part.

Seriously, if you're going to claim that people don't know their science, it behooves you to learn some yourself.


Not to mention anyone with such a strong sex drive as to have sex with either gender may well out-reproduce a person who is attracted to only one gender; ZOMG, bi-sexuality is an evolutionary advantage!

Scarab Sages

Paul DiAndrea wrote:

Here's a logical fact that will piss off the gays (because the truth stings) and Christians (because they hate evolution):

A couple of points:

1) Not all Christians hate evolution. I don't hate evolution. Now (and I know this makes me sound like a bumpkin, but bear with me), I've never heard/seen conclusive evidence proving Abiogenesis or Macro-Evolution, but I definitely believe in Micro-Evolution, and would be more than happy to accept evidence proving the validity of the former 2 theories.

2) Comparing Homosexuality to a physical disorder or disease seems like a bit of a misconception. First, it assumes that Homosexuality is entirely biological which, to my knowledge, has never been proven. Second, it assumes that homosexuality, in some way negatively inhibits, or is caused by an inhibition of, normal bodily functions, which it does/is not.

However, the presence of sin/defect does not make a person "subpar" compared tot he rest of humanity, as every person has issues/defects.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Paul DiAndrea wrote:
Any creature in nature that cannot reproduce is considered an evolutionary dead end.

Evolution works at the species level, in terms of allele frequencies. It's not an individual thing. Non-reproducing bee drones aren't dead ends, because they promote the survival (and thus propogation) of the genes of the rest of the hive.

If you're going to claim that people don't know their science, it behooves you to learn some yourself.

I get what he means, even if he doesn't explain himself well (or is borderline ignorant of evolutionary biology).

To me the important thing is that, since the neolithic revolution at the latest, the selective forces at play in human evolution are very different. People who would never be able to survive on the Serengeti (or whatever) find SOCIAL advantages. Our genetic evolution defies the observations of other species because of the things that make us unique.

While in other species, assuming that homosexuality is pre-determined by an individual's genetic code, homosexuality would not be an advantageous adaptation to the individual. However, in humans, it has little or no bearing due to our astoundingly advanced technology (among other things).

Liberty's Edge Star Voter 2013

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paul DiAndrea wrote:

Here's a logical fact that will piss off the gays (because the truth stings) and Christians (because they hate evolution):

Any creature in nature that cannot reproduce is considered an evolutionary dead end. So that means if you have erectile disfunction, low sperm count, or only copulate with members of the same sex; you are an evolutionary dead end.

So if you accept evolution, you pretty much have to admit that those who are incapable of reproduction are subpar, whether they be gay or straight. Once again for the mentally challenged who have trouble with scientific facts; in evolution anything that can't reproduce is a dead-end failure. Now, a Bi-sexual is not a dead end because even though they engage in some homosexual behaviors, they are not exclusively homosexual and therefor have a higher chance of reproduction.

And BTW, Im not against gay marriage and I don't believe you can "cure" it. You obviously can't control who you are attracted to, but homosexuality is an abnormality just like diabetes, autism, or high blood pressure. It happens to some people and we dont know for sure why, but its hardly ideal, and if that offends you tough crap. Gays should be able to lead happy lives like anyone else, but lets call a spade a spade and stop dancing around the facts for the sake of political correctness.

If you are all so damn enlightened and claim to be so more logical than the religous folk, then you need to accept what science tells you is undeniably true and stop cherry-picking the facts to protect your flawed worldview.

I can hear the "boo hoo" now.

Well thankfully an intelligent God would never design such a...Oh wait...

I guess you would like us to go Logan's run after menopause then? Sorry Mom, but you are no longer of value to society...


meatrace wrote:
...assuming that homosexuality is pre-determined by an individual's genetic code...

This is another assumption I object to; see my edited post above. There's a reason I mentioned bees; queens aren't genetically different from drones; they're just fed a different diet as larvae, causing them to develop differently. Homosexuals don't appear to be genetically different from "straights" -- they just have different prenatal exposure levels to certain hormones, causing slightly different development in parts of the brain (Google "fraternal birth order effect").


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find it quite amusing when "Christians" act as if Jesus never said anything about homosexuality being against God.

“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)

On top of that he never condoned the practice. Why would the Son of God agree with anything that his Father had previously stated was in fact a sin? Did Jesus need to specifically say that murder and adultery were terrible things for them to be acts he stood against?

P.S. I have nothing against homosexuality and believe two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want. Nor should the state have any power over their decision. But I do find it hilarious when people act as if homosexuality was "totally dandy" by Jesus.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Paul DiAndrea wrote:


Any creature in nature that cannot reproduce is considered an evolutionary dead end. So that means if you have erectile disfunction, low sperm count, or only copulate with members of the same sex; you are an evolutionary dead end.

I can assure you that my sexy parts operates as well as anyone else's. Not being interested in reproductive sex isn't the same thing as being unable.

Nor, for that matter, is it clear why we should care even if we are evolutionary dead ends. I know I don't base my self-worth on how many children I can father or how widely spread my genes are. In fact given all the serious maladies that run in my family, I derive a small amount of satisfaction from the fact that I haven't and do not intend to procreate.


entropyrat wrote:

I find it quite amusing when "Christians" act as if Jesus never said anything about homosexuality being against God.

“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)

On top of that he never condoned the practice. Why would the Son of God agree with anything that his Father had previously stated was in fact a sin? Did Jesus need to specifically say that murder and adultery were terrible things for them to be acts he stood against?

P.S. I have nothing against homosexuality and believe two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want. Nor should the state have any power over their decision. But I do find it hilarious when people act as if homosexuality was "totally dandy" by Jesus.

What does Matthew 19 have to do with homosexuality??

Jesus is acknowledging that men and women become joined. But he does NOT say that only men and women are to be joined. In fact, he makes explicit reference to the Creation. Obviously, the first couple needed to be a man and a woman (if you're confused why, ask your parents), but that does not mean that later couples couldn't/shouldn't be gay.

I realize the great big "gay terror", but we really don't want to stop any straight couple from getting married and having kids. Some of them grow up to be twinks.


meatrace wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Paul DiAndrea wrote:
Any creature in nature that cannot reproduce is considered an evolutionary dead end.

Evolution works at the species level, in terms of allele frequencies. It's not an individual thing. Non-reproducing bee drones aren't dead ends, because they promote the survival (and thus propogation) of the genes of the rest of the hive.

If you're going to claim that people don't know their science, it behooves you to learn some yourself.

I get what he means, even if he doesn't explain himself well (or is borderline ignorant of evolutionary biology).

To me the important thing is that, since the neolithic revolution at the latest, the selective forces at play in human evolution are very different. People who would never be able to survive on the Serengeti (or whatever) find SOCIAL advantages. Our genetic evolution defies the observations of other species because of the things that make us unique.

While in other species, assuming that homosexuality is pre-determined by an individual's genetic code, homosexuality would not be an advantageous adaptation to the individual. However, in humans, it has little or no bearing due to our astoundingly advanced technology (among other things).

That's a very important point. Let's assume that a straight couple have kids. Then, something terrible happens. A mastodon comes and stomps on their hut. The parents are killed. The children need adult supervision in order to grow up into adults. But, all the straight couples in the group have as many kids as they can support. Fortunately, a gay uncle and his partner are available.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
meatrace wrote:
...assuming that homosexuality is pre-determined by an individual's genetic code...
This is another assumption I object to; see my edited post above. There's a reason I mentioned bees; queens aren't genetically different from drones; they're just fed a different diet as larvae, causing them to develop differently. Homosexuals don't appear to be genetically different from "straights" -- they just have different prenatal exposure levels to certain hormones, causing slightly different development in parts of the brain (Google "fraternal birth order effect").

I just meant even if that were the case. I also don't believe that's so.

Scarab Sages

Darkwing Duck wrote:


What does Matthew 19 have to do with homosexuality??

Jesus is acknowledging that men and women become joined. But he does NOT say that only men and women are to be joined. In fact, he makes explicit reference to the Creation. Obviously, the first couple needed to be a man and a woman (if you're confused why, ask your parents), but that does not mean that later couples couldn't/shouldn't be gay.

Actually, I would say that Genesis 2:18-24 represent the referred to text. From the NIV:

Bible Quote:

NIV Bible, Genesis 2:18-24 wrote:


18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.
20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh.
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
entropyrat wrote:

I find it quite amusing when "Christians" act as if Jesus never said anything about homosexuality being against God.

“Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ “and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’” (Matt. 19:4.)

On top of that he never condoned the practice. Why would the Son of God agree with anything that his Father had previously stated was in fact a sin? Did Jesus need to specifically say that murder and adultery were terrible things for them to be acts he stood against?

P.S. I have nothing against homosexuality and believe two consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want. Nor should the state have any power over their decision. But I do find it hilarious when people act as if homosexuality was "totally dandy" by Jesus.

What does Matthew 19 have to do with homosexuality??

Jesus is acknowledging that men and women become joined. But he does NOT say that only men and women are to be joined. In fact, he makes explicit reference to the Creation. Obviously, the first couple needed to be a man and a woman (if you're confused why, ask your parents), but that does not mean that later couples couldn't/shouldn't be gay.

The point DW is that unless Jesus specifically states that a previous tenet of the Law from the Old Testament is canceled then it is very much in effect. All of the myriad of laws from the OT don't suddenly become null and void simply because Jesus came along. Are many of the old laws ridiculous and non-sensical by today's standards? Absolutely. But if you consider yourself a Biblical Christian they are still valid and part of God's Word.

P.S. I'm an atheist and find most of it ridiculous. But I grew up in a home of Biblical scholars so I was raised with this stuff drilled into me.


Davor wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:


What does Matthew 19 have to do with homosexuality??

Jesus is acknowledging that men and women become joined. But he does NOT say that only men and women are to be joined. In fact, he makes explicit reference to the Creation. Obviously, the first couple needed to be a man and a woman (if you're confused why, ask your parents), but that does not mean that later couples couldn't/shouldn't be gay.

Actually, I would say that Genesis 2:18-24 represent the referred to text. From the NIV:

** spoiler omitted **

God told man to be fruitful and multiply and, for that, he created a helper. Can you guess as to why the first helper to be fruitful and multiply had to be a woman?

It still says nothing against homosexuality.


entropyrat wrote:


The point DW is that unless Jesus specifically states that a previous tenet of the Law from the Old Testament is canceled then it is very much in effect. All of the myriad of laws from the OT don't suddenly become null and void simply because Jesus came along.

Just to be clear here, are you saying that eating cheeseburgers is still a sin?

I was raised in a family of fundamentalist freaks and I'm not aware of any of them ever claiming that eating cheeseburgers was a sin.

451 to 500 of 1,199 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / I'm Christian, Unless You're Gay All Messageboards

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