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

As GM how do you RP unusual characters and abilities in game?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

151 to 194 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Pretty much, yeah.

Imagine him mixed in with the cast of Sin City and you'll see the problem.


Mikaze wrote:
Asurasan wrote:
'Acceptance' as a is something fringe elements need to work for, often times only gained at the individual level. Looking like an giant undead unicorn that shoots spiders from the bloody stump of a horn you once had, is probably not ever going to earn the hand of the Mayors daughter or be given the keys to the city. Could it happen, yes? Is it likely, probably not unless Zombarachnocorns are a particularly...
These are statted up and available as mounts further down the line in Jade Regent, right?

Haha, perhaps but our Jade Regent sessions are starting to become as rare as Zombarachnocorns it seems. Stupid work!

Mikaze wrote:
Please tell me that he looked like Bob Ross and had a supernaturally compelling soothing voice.

Just put that Goblin where ever... you're the artist, you get to do what you want. Now Make sure to use some extra color on these assassin vines...


Doomed Hero wrote:

Pretty much, yeah.

Imagine him mixed in with the cast of Sin City and you'll see the problem.

So a setting can't have contrasting themes?

That sounds rather uncreative. I sure as heck would put a dark and gritty monster in a My Little Pony setting just to see what happens.

Qadira

Icyshadow wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

Pretty much, yeah.

Imagine him mixed in with the cast of Sin City and you'll see the problem.

So a setting can't have contrasting themes?

That sounds rather uncreative. I sure as heck would put a dark and gritty monster in a My Little Pony setting just to see what happens.

you would piss off people that wanted cute and innocent, just like a pony in a grimdark campaign would irk the ones that want that.


So people hate variety?

No wonder arts of all kinds have been left to stagnate nowadays.

I also doubt everyone in all of history would share that sentiment. Some might like the sudden twist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
you would piss off people that wanted cute and innocent, just like a pony in a grimdark campaign would irk the ones that want that.

You mean like the my-little-pony-cow-level in diablo 3? ^^


Play the character. Kick some ass, take some names. Depart from the default shopping option. Buy a boat, set up a guild, create the beginnings of an elite organization with a specific purpose. Be the stuff of legends that your character is trying to be. Don't be afraid to take risks and stop sweating the hp from the meta-gaming perspective. Hero or villain pcs can be cool as long as they step away from the safety net of certain themes such as relying on a truckload of magic or magic items in their court.


The equalizer wrote:
step away from the safety net of certain themes such as relying on a truckload of magic or magic items in their court.

I am curious what your method of doing this is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's a matter of whether or not you, as a player, are on board with the creative themes of the story.

Icy, from your posts I can tell you are what is commonly referred to as an "entitlement complex player".

I'm not trying to insult you. I'm trying to tell you that your line of thinking is a common enough one to deserve it's own title.

When everyone is playing grimdark characters, and together they take a diversion into a wildly different theme (like a pony level in diablo), that is fun.

When everyone except one person is playing grimdark characters and one person decides to take a diversion into ponyland, that is not fun. That one player is trying to make the game about them.

That's why entitlement players are near universally regarded as a problem. Role playing games are fundamentally cooperative experiences.

It is not about you.

Your all-female quarter-cow race might have a place in a game where they are tied into the setting somehow, but getting angry that the GM decided not to include them in their world is exactly as silly as playing a game set in ancient Rome and you getting angry that you cannot play an elf.

Sometimes players get to help create the setting. That can be awesome. Usually, though, you are playing in someone else's sandbox, and you only get to play with the toys they provide.

If everyone is building hills and playing trucks, and you want to dig big holes with a shovel, you're probably going to be asked to find a different sandbox because, frankly, you are ruining everyone else's fun and being kind of a jerk.

Don't be a jerk.


Did you not read what he did? Did you not read any of my posts?

He broke his word, mocked all of my creations, and committed other offenses.

And you have the nerve to call me entitled, when I made it clear I was willing to discuss the themes of a campaign?
I've even helped flesh out his own ones, and then he went with the whole "surprise ban" thing as a "thank you" for me.

I'm sorry, but I have to question your perception of reality by this part.

Please stop letting my DM act like a jerk while calling me one, thank you.


He might very well be a jerk. I can't tell, I haven't played with him. The only thing I have to go on is your descriptions, which, honestly, paint him as a guy who changed his mind and then had a player get butt-hurt about it.

If you dont like his decisions and feel like your ideas are being mocked, don't play with him. It's that simple.

In coming onto a public forum and complaining that someone changed their mind about letting you play the special quarter cow lady you made up, you paint a pretty negative picture of yourself.


I find it funny how you refuse to see that the DM has been a jerk to the group (maybe you didn't read the posts?), yet you also assume that I'm just a butt-hurt idiot. Also, that's a rather misplaced argument you put there. The race he originally banned was not the "special quarter cow lady", but an elf-like race with a strict caste system that worship a rather alien Lawful Good deity of Winter. Sorry, but it's hard to take people seriously when they display behaviour like that. You make assumptions of me, and can't even get your facts straight.

By now, I wonder why I even bothered replying to that.


Anyway, back to the OP's question:

As a player I am always the guy who waits for everyone else to create their character and then creates one to complement the rest of the party. Why? Because, even after playing this game for 30-some years in one form or another, there are still thousands of cool character concepts that I want to play and haven't yet. I have no problem with a GM banning or changing a character concept I came up with because there are still lots more that are just as cool. I have a little trouble sympathizing with players who say they absolutely "must" play a certain class and/or race or the game isn't fun for them. I guess if I had created a supercool character, I'd probably approach the GM and if it didn't work in the current campaign, I'd store it away and ask him if maybe next time we could play a campaign in which that character would fit.

As a GM, I've gone in very different directions, depending on the nature of the campaign. Some campaigns I've been pretty loose about what is allowed, allowing a minotaur character, and a half-ogre character, for example. In others that I homebrewed I've been very restrictive because characters outside the box simply make no sense in the setting. I don't force this on anyone, of course. I always brief the campaign concept well before I run it, and if the players aren't interested in it, I put it away and move on to something else they would be interested in. The most restrictive campaign I ever ran was one that was low-magic, was a mix of Bronze and Stone Age technology, and all characters had to be human, although there were different types of humans with slightly different advantages and disadvantages. There were also no wizards, bards, paladins or monk clases for players. That was the campaign out of the 4 that I briefed that my players chose, and they (and I) had a lot of fun despite the restrictions.

As for whether I have roleplaying consequences for character creation choices, I give a resounding yes, but that's true for all characters, not just unusual ones. I have all players provide me a brief character backstory which I draw on for hooks to advance the story and give each character some moments in the spotlight. For example, the aforementioned minotaur was an escaped drow slave who had been tortured mercilessly, so had a chance of going berserk any time he witnessed slavery or torture. Made for some fun roleplaying. In the most recent campaign I ran (Kingmaker), I've used family or backstory connections for every one of the characters to enhance the realism of the setting and provide additional drama. For example, the paladin's wife and children were captured and held hostage by some recurring enemies who launched a coup while the group was off adventuring, leading to a daring mission to retake the castle and rescue the hostages. Not just a great fight, but also some excellent roleplaying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:

I find it funny how you refuse to see that the DM has been a jerk to the group (maybe you didn't read the posts?), yet you also assume that I'm just a butt-hurt idiot. Also, that's a rather misplaced argument you put there. The race he originally banned was not the "special quarter cow lady", but an elf-like race with a strict caste system that worship a rather alien Lawful Good deity of Winter. Sorry, but it's hard to take people seriously when they display behaviour like that. You make assumptions of me, and can't even get your facts straight.

By now, I wonder why I even bothered replying to that.

Just a word of what I hope is wisdom, to help you understand why you are getting the reactions you are. Take it as you wish.

Many people are reluctant to label your GM as a jerk because they are only hearing your perspective on him, and he has had no chance to explain his reasoning or defend himself.

They have less problem judging you by the content of your own words and the tone with which you employ them.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
Asurasan wrote:

Haha, perhaps but our Jade Regent sessions are starting to become as rare as Zombarachnocorns it seems. Stupid work!

Ha!

...

;_;


Brian Bachman wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

I find it funny how you refuse to see that the DM has been a jerk to the group (maybe you didn't read the posts?), yet you also assume that I'm just a butt-hurt idiot. Also, that's a rather misplaced argument you put there. The race he originally banned was not the "special quarter cow lady", but an elf-like race with a strict caste system that worship a rather alien Lawful Good deity of Winter. Sorry, but it's hard to take people seriously when they display behaviour like that. You make assumptions of me, and can't even get your facts straight.

By now, I wonder why I even bothered replying to that.

Just a word of what I hope is wisdom, to help you understand why you are getting the reactions you are. Take it as you wish.

Many people are reluctant to label your GM as a jerk because they are only hearing your perspective on him, and he has had no chance to explain his reasoning or defend himself.

They have less problem judging you by the content of your own words and the tone with which you employ them.

I wonder why they are reluctant to do so when I provide information about what happened, not what I think happened.

And I've actually told him to step up and give "his side of the story" instead of merely demanding I apologize for various things I've said. However...

Icyshadow wrote:
I think one reason me and my DM are still not on the best of terms is that we both seem to have selective memories, he insists that I never apologized about certain things, and he seems to claim the past situations were completely different from how I remember them. I refuse to believe so because his claims are rather out there and his vision of how I was doesn't match me as a person at all.


Because none of us are there so we don't know how much you are describing is hyperbole or what has been left out? The amount of vitriol you have unleashed about this particular GM is at this point making you look worse than the person you are complaining about.

I would also hazard that many people may have less of a problem banning a player made race than something like a Tengu or Elf, which are in the rules already.


I've told this from my perspective. He'd say I left things out. Then again, he'd also claim I was unwilling to compromise when it came to certain concepts, which is a lie. He was the one who had never chosen to compromise, and issued mostly ultimatums of the "do it this way or play something else" variety. If you don't believe me, that's fine. I'd feel hurt that I am honestly being made the guilty party when I am not, but I can't force beliefs on people. He can show up here and give "his" side, and I could ask a fellow player from the table to testify on my behalf if this really has to become a court case, though why I'd need to prove my innocence when I am the victim is beyond me.

Both the players and the DM know that my homebrews are not broken stat-wise. One of the two main reasons to ban them is therefore nulled.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's what you say happened, what he said happened, and then there is what actually happened. None of which match.

Perspective.

Silver Crusade

"do it this way or play something else" is a legitimate statement for a GM to make. You are in no way obligated to play with him. Get another GM, or run a game yourself. If the other players feel the same, they'll join you. Maybe your GM will have a change of heart and join your new game.

If my usual GM is running a wild west gunslinging game, and I show up with a space elf, there's no amount of compromise that will make it fit. It's an extreme case, but the point is that if I want to play a space elf, I shouldn't be trying to join the wild west game. I'll either change my character to fit the game, or find a game that my character fits in. If all the players wanted to play space elves, cyborgs, and alien monsters, they would find a game that accommodated those characters, and the wild west game would either not be played or the GM would find new players.

If your caste system elf-like race isn't allowed in the game, find a game where it is. I'm sure someone has a campaign where that's even the norm. Even something as minor as "the concept of a caste system doesn't exist in this world" would leave no place for your custom race, no matter how much you want to compromise. Why doesn't an elf from a specific village with a caste system work essentially the same?

As someone stated, chances are this isn't the last game you'll ever play. Put the character and his custom race in storage for the next game, and make something that fits in the GM's world for this game. There are plenty of interesting characters to play. You can have just as much fun with a character that fits as you can with your custom one.


Riuken wrote:
As someone stated, chances are this isn't the last game you'll ever play. Put the character and his custom race in storage for the next game, and make something that fits in the GM's world for this game. There are plenty of interesting characters to play. You can have just as much fun with a character that fits as you can with your custom one.

Chances are that the GM will never make a world where they fit. Hell, I've done my best to make them fit in Golarion (with quite a bit of success, if I'd say so myself) but he banned them there as well. When I run Kingmaker, he will have to deal with all my races being canon. I'll be playing the "deal with it or leave this game" card myself, and I'm pretty sure the players won't miss him if he starts to get butthurt over it. If he can dish out that card, he should be able to take it, too.

Qadira

Icyshadow wrote:

So people hate variety?

No wonder arts of all kinds have been left to stagnate nowadays.

I also doubt everyone in all of history would share that sentiment. Some might like the sudden twist.

Some might, many do not. They want what they signed up for. Imagine how you would feel if you ordered a pizza you have been looking forward to and some ass at the pizza joint decided to switch it for blended wheatgrass and chia seed porridge. He thought it was variety and you may even end up enjoying it if you try it, but odds are you will not be happy about the switch. Or your date ends up being the wrong gender, which you discover too late. This is a co-op game so not only must you work with your dm, but the other players as well.

Qadira

Icyshadow wrote:
Riuken wrote:
As someone stated, chances are this isn't the last game you'll ever play. Put the character and his custom race in storage for the next game, and make something that fits in the GM's world for this game. There are plenty of interesting characters to play. You can have just as much fun with a character that fits as you can with your custom one.
Chances are that the GM will never make a world where they fit. Hell, I've done my best to make them fit in Golarion (with quite a bit of success, if I'd say so myself) but he banned them there as well. When I run Kingmaker, he will have to deal with all my races being canon. I'll be playing the "deal with it or leave this game" card myself, and I'm pretty sure the players won't miss him if he starts to get butthurt over it. If he can dish out that card, he should be able to take it, too.

Careful not to nuke your party and lose the players entirely just to get revenge.


Icyshadow wrote:
When I run Kingmaker, he will have to deal with all my races being canon. I'll be playing the "deal with it or leave this game" card myself, and I'm pretty sure the players won't miss him if he starts to get butthurt over it. If he can dish out that card, he should be able to take it, too.

Wait...

So you are already planning to do the exact same thing that made you upset in the first place?

Facepalm.


Honestly, if a DM is causing this much stress (enough for you to complain about it in three threads so far that I have noticed in the last few days), maybe you should really take a break from this person. Doesn't sound to fun for either of you.


Andrew R wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Riuken wrote:
As someone stated, chances are this isn't the last game you'll ever play. Put the character and his custom race in storage for the next game, and make something that fits in the GM's world for this game. There are plenty of interesting characters to play. You can have just as much fun with a character that fits as you can with your custom one.
Chances are that the GM will never make a world where they fit. Hell, I've done my best to make them fit in Golarion (with quite a bit of success, if I'd say so myself) but he banned them there as well. When I run Kingmaker, he will have to deal with all my races being canon. I'll be playing the "deal with it or leave this game" card myself, and I'm pretty sure the players won't miss him if he starts to get butthurt over it. If he can dish out that card, he should be able to take it, too.
Careful not to nuke your party and lose the players entirely just to get revenge.

Don't worry, I've always kept a level head as a DM. I won't even go for a low blow and steal his spellbook or anything, since he's playing a Wizard and all.

Doomed Hero wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
When I run Kingmaker, he will have to deal with all my races being canon. I'll be playing the "deal with it or leave this game" card myself, and I'm pretty sure the players won't miss him if he starts to get butthurt over it. If he can dish out that card, he should be able to take it, too.

Wait...

So you are already planning to do the exact same thing that made you upset in the first place?

Facepalm.

I won't ban anything from him. How am I doing the same thing?

Silver Crusade

Icyshadow wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
When I run Kingmaker, he will have to deal with all my races being canon. I'll be playing the "deal with it or leave this game" card myself, and I'm pretty sure the players won't miss him if he starts to get butthurt over it. If he can dish out that card, he should be able to take it, too.

Wait...

So you are already planning to do the exact same thing that made you upset in the first place?

Facepalm.

I won't ban anything from him. How am I doing the same thing?

I think he means not working with the players, listening to their ideas, and making changes to the world to make it a setting they want to play in. Allowing everything can be as bad as being restrictive. If he wants a serious game, and you have flying jello dwarves who fight with the power of friendship and jiggly dance in your game, and you won't listen to his ideas and make the game more enjoyable for him, you're doing the same thing.


Riuken wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
When I run Kingmaker, he will have to deal with all my races being canon. I'll be playing the "deal with it or leave this game" card myself, and I'm pretty sure the players won't miss him if he starts to get butthurt over it. If he can dish out that card, he should be able to take it, too.

Wait...

So you are already planning to do the exact same thing that made you upset in the first place?

Facepalm.

I won't ban anything from him. How am I doing the same thing?
I think he means not working with the players, listening to their ideas, and making changes to the world to make it a setting they want to play in. Allowing everything can be as bad as being restrictive. If he wants a serious game, and you have flying jello dwarves who fight with the power of friendship and jiggly dance in your game, and you won't listen to his ideas and make the game more enjoyable for him, you're doing the same thing.

Actually, our discussions on character designs have been just fine so far. I've allowed certain things, and not allowed any overly outlandish ideas. Then again, the latter has not been proposed either. The only differences will be that I do not just suddenly houserule things in my favour to shoot the players in the foot, and neither will I ban anything without a good reason and without hearing out the players first. Except maybe him.


Icy, I'm trying hard to hold my snark in check and be constructive. Please try to follow me here-

So far, most of your posts can be paraphrased as "The GM won't let me introduce something into the game and it makes me angry."

The overwhelming response has been "It is the GM's prerogative not to include certain things in their setting. Why not play something else?"

Your rebuttal has been "Because I should be able to play what I want."

To which we have replied "Not at the expense of the story or the others in the game."

Your winter-worshiping elves might have a place in a game someday. Don't get angry when a GM says "not in this game" and maybe they'll work it into the next one.


Doomed Hero wrote:

Icy, I'm trying hard to hold my snark in check and be constructive. Please try to follow me here-

So far, most of your posts can be paraphrased as "The GM won't let me introduce something into the game and it makes me angry."

The overwhelming response has been "It is the GM's prerogative not to include certain things in their setting. Why not play something else?"

Your rebuttal has been "Because I should be able to play what I want."

To which we have replied "Not at the expense of the story or the others in the game."

Your winter-worshiping elves might have a place in a game someday. Don't get angry when a GM says "not in this game" and maybe they'll work it into the next one.

Please listen.

For one, that is not a very accurate depiction of the situation as a whole, at least in regards to my reaction and how he executed said action. And I repeat, once more. No player had a problem with it. They were equally familiar with the setting, and they didn't say it was breaking it. Actually, in the end, neither did the DM. He didn't want them, "just because" he didn't. And he didn't say just "not in this game", but more or less said "not in any game" which is quite different.


That is still his prerogative. "I don't like it" is a perfectly valid reason for a GM to deny something in their game.

You don't have to agree with the decision. You have the choice not to play, and to run your own game. Complaining about the decision on a public forum comes across as extremely childish.


I'd still ask him to elaborate on why doesn't he like it.

And I did make the choice of running my own game. I am playing my Changeling Sorcerer in his game as normal.

The only thing is, he's not going to get my respect back after how he talked to me last time, which is unrelated to any complaints here.


If all you want is to know why, then ask him.

We can't help you.

Shadow Lodge

Just so I understand, the issue is that you built a race using the ARG, and your GM doesn't want to include it in his world. And you've come here to whine about that, ignoring the bit where anything player-created, much less an entire race, is subject to GM approval.

Is that pretty much the short version?


Kthulhu: Only if you're blatantly misinterpreting the message he sends by conflating them with facts and his observed behavior...

I mean, the GM said "Not this time." So he wants to run something and gives "make the GM understand how it feels" (paraphrased) as a motive.

I'd ask him to find (or start) another group. Life is too short to put up with whining at gaming.


The GM said "not ever", and I've said that before.

And Kthulhu, there was much more background to the whole thing.

I have also mentioned multiple times that I will run a game soon myself.


Icyshadow, did you build a new race, or reskin an existing race? I can totally see why a GM would be leery of homemade (stat wise) races, since it opens the door to allow people to come up with their own races which might be way more powerful than any of the current options. What are the stats for these guys?


The stats are homemade, but like I've said, I've placed them in multiple places for review and nobody has really said that they are overpowered. Besides, I'm only interested in playing them for RP reasons, and so far only one player aside from me has had any interest in homebrew races. His race idea is not overpowered either.


Icyshadow, possible reasons your DM doesn't want your race that I haven't seen mentioned or worded quite like this (read 70% of this very long read):

1. Can of worms. While your race might not be broken, it opens the door for yourself or others to start making broken races and he would have to defend rejecting ideas that fall more into a grey area.

2. World Vision. If he has created a world and a tone for it, the cow people simply ruin the mood. I have built worlds without small races just because they aesthetically didn't feel like they belonged with the mood I was trying to create. Granted I didn't tell the players they couldn't make one, but they never came across a small NPC in 3 years of gaming.

3. Your GM struggles more than you with the task. You keep saying how easy GMing is, but perhaps it just comes easier to you and/or you are setting the bar lower without realizing it.

4. Your GM doesn't like your approach to the game. If you are constantly berating what he does, he likely doesn't feel compelled to bend over backwards for you.

I personally like to have a lot of flexibility in my games for the reasons you have mentioned, but I have also had it really bite me in the ass as well. I have had lots of disagreements across the DM/Player line from both sides of the table, but demanding a homebrew race be accepted seems like a non-starter for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is reminding me of the fact that what pretty much makes or breaks any given game is player-player-GM chemistry.

If the people at the table don't bloody trust each-other, the kind of crap-fest Icy has described, and worse, ensues.

GM's gotta listen to their players, and players in return, need to respect GM authority. Otherwise, as they say, the ship don't sail.


maybe if you placed the stats here or in the homebrew section, some of us could at least rule out if it was an issue of them being broken/slightly broken?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
maybe if you placed the stats here or in the homebrew section, some of us could at least rule out if it was an issue of them being broken/slightly broken?

That's not really the point, it could be broken as all hell, or balanced as a gymnast. IT'd be beside the central issue of this thread, authorial pulls of player vs. GM.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
maybe if you placed the stats here or in the homebrew section, some of us could at least rule out if it was an issue of them being broken/slightly broken?
That's not really the point, it could be broken as all hell, or balanced as a gymnast. IT'd be beside the central issue of this thread, authorial pulls of player vs. GM.

Very true. The 3.5 Epic game my friend ran had ridiculous stats, (you can see some of it here) but it went smoothly because no one had any problems trusting the DM.


Well I was more getting at the specific question on why Icyshadow may have had his GM revoke his races.

I mean, I get the forum is all about authorial pulls of player vs GM, but IMHO the situation is a bit different if it's GM's banning Tengu or Nagajii (or gunslingers and ninjas) then if it's a GM banning home made, untested material invented by a player.

151 to 194 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / As GM how do you RP unusual characters and abilities in game? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.