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

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Fallen Paladin: Does attacking a possessed party member qualify as an Evil Act and Violation of the Paladin Code?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
That may be the underlying meaning, but it's a huge stretch to say that "brothers before whores" isn't misogynistic.
"Bros before hoes" =/= "brothers before whores". For one, "hoe" isn't generally used as an abbreviation of "whore" (which in itself is not a misogynistic word, since it refers to a profession). Second, as I mentioned above, "bro" and "hoe" can both refer to men and women, so you're comparing apples and oranges.

1) I've never heard a guy called a "hoe" before.

2) I have never heard it NOT be an abbreviation for "whore".

3) Just because you can call a sex worker that doesn't make it any less misogynistic or demeaning.

4) Being a sex worker does not give other people the right to insult or demean them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"You have fallen from grace for being TOO GOOD at being Good, and for having mucked up my paladin trap!"

If I as a player of a paladin who was playing it DARN WELL despite the craptastic situation here heard this, the next sound would be the sound of the door and my truck starting.

I dislike pointing this out, and we can indeed chalk somethings up to YRMV, table house rules, GM vision vs. player agenda, but at the end of the day, this is an example of poor GMing, and poor GM behavior in general.

GM's, yeah, we are people, we are imperfect, I have been GMing for 25 years, and I STILL make mistakes, and don't always have every session go awesome still, but there are the mistake examples like:

woops, forgot you had that feat, lets correct that and make note for next time. Happen all the time, not a big deal.

Or

I should have remembered that part of your PC's background, that makes more sense why you did that, lets work this out quick and get back to the game...

I argue this GM has gone beyond mistake territory, into willful disregard for the game's rules, and has to some degree violated the social contract of a GM to his players, (that is, the one good, responsible, serious, and mature GM's seem to have inherently with their players, it does not even take a huge amount of effort to do this, some do it without even even knowing it)

This is a long way from an oversight or a mechanical mistake/miscalculation, taking pains to cause one of your player's characters to loss their core abilities for managing to play a tough to do because of alignment class well, even despite your best attempts to sow Fiat (likely) chaos, for what reason, who knows is a whole different beast. A GM should never punish a player for actively engaging with the scenario given, and doing it well, that is simply not how it is done.

/end rant


Cheburn wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
This is getting vitriolic. I wonder if it's worth pinging it for FAQ consideration?

"Should the Paladin fall" topics often get heated. This thread doesn't seem to have a ton of vitriol, relatively speaking, as the vast majority of posters feel your Paladin should not have fallen for the actions as you described them. Some reasonable guidelines from a forum post in 2012. As far as "does attacking an ally cause a Paladin to fall," the actual answer is "it depends." Thus, it's not really a good FAQ candidate.

As far as the rest of my commentary on the Black Blade goes, it's more that he's ignoring non-questioned game mechanics, I'm assuming (which could be making an ass out of me), without having discussed it with the group. There's no need for a FAQ; he should just be clear that in his campaign Black Blades will function following his house-rules.

Thanks, Cheburn. I've marked that 2012 post as a favorite for my own future reference.


John Napier 698 wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
This is getting vitriolic. I wonder if it's worth pinging it for FAQ consideration?

"Should the Paladin fall" topics often get heated. This thread doesn't seem to have a ton of vitriol, relatively speaking, as the vast majority of posters feel your Paladin should not have fallen for the actions as you described them. Some reasonable guidelines from a forum post in 2012. As far as "does attacking an ally cause a Paladin to fall," the actual answer is "it depends." Thus, it's not really a good FAQ candidate.

As far as the rest of my commentary on the Black Blade goes, it's more that he's ignoring non-questioned game mechanics, I'm assuming (which could be making an ass out of me), without having discussed it with the group. There's no need for a FAQ; he should just be clear that in his campaign Black Blades will function following his house-rules.

Thanks, Cheburn. I've marked that 2012 post as a favorite for my own future reference.

Same here. And I'm sorry if I jumped the gun on wondering if this should be submitted to be a FAQ issue. I just started posting here, and I was a bit concerned by some of the aggression towards my GM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

There's not much to talk about Aranna since you seem to have come into this conversation on the position that the OP is in the wrong and should apologize... for being bullied.

Add that with any attempts for OP to stand up for themselves is seen as "needlessly arguing" and, yeah...

Aranna wrote:
The GM is final authority on alignments and codes. If the whole world thinks the GM is wrong it doesn't matter.
...

If this situation is not about "fragging" a player for playing a Paladin, then it is about hazing a player new to the group, which is just as morally wrong.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
Apparently, the GM viewed spilling the blood of an ally as an evil act and betrayal of the paladin code. I was just wondering if it's that extreme. The intent was to prevent the Magus from committing an evil act by killing a potentially good-aligned creature while he was under the influence of an unknown, aggressive intelligence.

In this GM's game, apparently so. In my games, this would not be an issue.


And for those wondering about the Magus constantly failing his Will save against his Black Blade, don't worry. He hasn't. Yes, his Black Blade has been giving him suggestions to destroy other Black Blades when we come across them. He has more or less only done so to shut the Blade up since it won't drop the subject whenever another Black Blade is in the vicinity.

This is the first time he has failed the Will save outright. By failing on a 1 as a few of you have guessed. So it was the first time the Magus was not in control of his actions. Every other time we went up against a Black Blade wielder, he was in control and could be trusted to show restraint. This was the first time that trust was no longer present.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
John Napier 698 wrote:
Rysky wrote:

There's not much to talk about Aranna since you seem to have come into this conversation on the position that the OP is in the wrong and should apologize... for being bullied.

Add that with any attempts for OP to stand up for themselves is seen as "needlessly arguing" and, yeah...

Aranna wrote:
The GM is final authority on alignments and codes. If the whole world thinks the GM is wrong it doesn't matter.
...
If this situation is not about "fragging" a player for playing a Paladin, then it is about hazing a player new to the group, which is just as morally wrong.

Agreed.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
Apparently, the GM viewed spilling the blood of an ally as an evil act and betrayal of the paladin code. I was just wondering if it's that extreme. The intent was to prevent the Magus from committing an evil act by killing a potentially good-aligned creature while he was under the influence of an unknown, aggressive intelligence.
In this GM's game, apparently so. In my games, this would not be an issue.

I completely agree. It wouldn't be an issue in my games, either. I would flat-out disallow intelligent items. Previously, creating intelligent items would involve either summoning a spirit and binding it to the object, or sacrificing a sentient and bonding its soul. So, this begs the question. Is the possession / use of an intelligent item an Evil act, akin to slavery?


John Napier 698 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
Apparently, the GM viewed spilling the blood of an ally as an evil act and betrayal of the paladin code. I was just wondering if it's that extreme. The intent was to prevent the Magus from committing an evil act by killing a potentially good-aligned creature while he was under the influence of an unknown, aggressive intelligence.
In this GM's game, apparently so. In my games, this would not be an issue.
I completely agree. It wouldn't be an issue in my games, either. I would flat-out disallow intelligent items. Previously, creating intelligent items would involve either summoning a spirit and binding it to the object, or sacrificing a sentient and bonding its soul. So, this begs the question. Is the possession / use of an intelligent item an Evil act, akin to slavery?

For your average intelligent item, the answer would be yes. But the text for the Bladebound Magus states that nobody knows where Black Blades come from or how they are made. They just show up whenever a Bladebound Magus has become strong enough to wield them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
John Napier 698 wrote:
Cheburn wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
This is getting vitriolic. I wonder if it's worth pinging it for FAQ consideration?

"Should the Paladin fall" topics often get heated. This thread doesn't seem to have a ton of vitriol, relatively speaking, as the vast majority of posters feel your Paladin should not have fallen for the actions as you described them. Some reasonable guidelines from a forum post in 2012. As far as "does attacking an ally cause a Paladin to fall," the actual answer is "it depends." Thus, it's not really a good FAQ candidate.

As far as the rest of my commentary on the Black Blade goes, it's more that he's ignoring non-questioned game mechanics, I'm assuming (which could be making an ass out of me), without having discussed it with the group. There's no need for a FAQ; he should just be clear that in his campaign Black Blades will function following his house-rules.

Thanks, Cheburn. I've marked that 2012 post as a favorite for my own future reference.
Same here. And I'm sorry if I jumped the gun on wondering if this should be submitted to be a FAQ issue. I just started posting here, and I was a bit concerned by some of the aggression towards my GM.

It's a relatively common, and bad, GM decision to make a Paladin Fall for unfair or nebulous reasons. It's also not as uncommon as it should be for GMs to specifically set up Paladins to Fall (putting them in dilemmas where the GM will make them Fall no matter what they do), either because they don't like Paladins or because they think it will be a climactic moment.

Lot's of people have seen this kind of GM behavior, and dislike it intensely. So if you post a story describing how your Paladin was forced to Fall for reasons that were ... flimsy at best ... well, you've seen how it goes. That being said, I think most of the negative comments about your GM that you saw stemmed from the fact that posters felt you were treated unjustly in your game, and were indignant on your behalf.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Exactly. This situation has raised my hackles. It's not in my nature to not say anything when I see something wrong, as I do in this case.


Captain Battletoad wrote:
Aranna wrote:

I fail to see where he says he is being bullied. If you and Rysky are seeing something there I don't then please enlighten me. The worst thing the OP talks about is falling for something he shouldn't have fallen for. And that is due to different interpretations of the paladin code. The only other fault I could see is the GM plot device which would bother me but doesn't seem to bother the OP.

The GM is final authority on alignments and codes. If the whole world thinks the GM is wrong it doesn't matter. Inside his own game the GM is right. As a player you really have just four options:
1- Reject the GM and leave the game. Pretty drastic and it sure won't make you any friends.
2- Avoid the issue by avoiding classes with specific code or alignment issues. It won't solve anything but it won't cost you anything either.
3- Accept the GMs interpretation and start playing by his rules. This will make the GM happy but may be a bitter pill to swallow especially after a heated argument.
4- Smooth Talk your GM into seeing things your way. This is best used with friends though and since he is new it is highly unlikely to work.

Options that will do harm:
5- Argue endlessly about it. NOBODY wants to hear someone whine and the group already is behind the GM on this.
6- Become a problem player till you get your way. Like the earlier bad advice about going antipaladin in a good group. This throwing a tantrum option is highly likely to get him tossed unceremoniously from the group.

I recommended option 2 as his best course as a newbie.
But why apologize if he did nothing wrong? I may be wrong but it sounded like there already was a heated argument which he lost. The group dynamic will be far more inclined to support him in the future if he falls on his sword here. And the group dynamic is FAR more powerful than being right or wrong. If he apologizes for the disruption of play rather than his stance he can win hearts without going back on his earlier arguments.

This is unrelated to Pathfinder, but very related to the OP and your comment above. While it can be smart to swallow your pride and drop grudges for the sake of keeping friendships, going full beta and apologizing for someone else having wronged you sets a bad precedent, especially if you're new to the group as OP says he is. Once you've established with the group that you're willing to forgive what crap they sling at you (and there really isn't any other reasonable way to interpret this, unless the GM's just completely incompetent) just so you can keep hanging out with them, you've pretty much given up being considered an equal.

How does apologizing set any kind of bad precedent? You are new. You went against the whole group in an argument. It doesn't matter that they are wrong since they clearly don't see it that way and THEY are the ones you are going to play with NOT the internet crowd. So smoothing out the rough waters with an apology is prudent to building a good relationship with these people. It lets them know you value their time and opinions. And that is an important first step to getting them to value yours.

For example:
"I am totally sorry guys for starting an argument the other day. I clearly have a different take on the paladin code than the group. Next time I will stat up an inquisitor so we don't have these issues. And again thanks for letting me play with you guys. I am having a great time."
How can that be bad? It shows consideration not weakness...


Rysky wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
That may be the underlying meaning, but it's a huge stretch to say that "brothers before whores" isn't misogynistic.
"Bros before hoes" =/= "brothers before whores". For one, "hoe" isn't generally used as an abbreviation of "whore" (which in itself is not a misogynistic word, since it refers to a profession). Second, as I mentioned above, "bro" and "hoe" can both refer to men and women, so you're comparing apples and oranges.
1) I've never heard a guy called a "hoe" before.

Really? I hear it all the time, usually from women, more specifically from the latinas that I know so it may be a cultural thing.

Quote:
2) I have never heard it NOT be an abbreviation for "whore".

I've only ever heard it be used to mean "someone who is just in it for sex", which is not what "whore" means.

Quote:
3) Just because you can call a sex worker that doesn't make it any less misogynistic or demeaning.

It's not inherently either misogynistic or demeaning to begin with. Whore simply means, "person who has sex for money". It's no more demeaning or misogynistic than "hooker" or "prostitute". They're synonyms, no more and no less. Now if someone is taking that to be an insult, then it's contextual and outside of the scope of this discussion.

Quote:
4) Being a sex worker does not give other people the right to insult or demean them.

I never said that it does. Refer to my response to point number 3 for this one as well.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
How does apologizing set any kind of bad precedent? You are new. You went against the whole group in an argument. It doesn't matter that they are wrong since they clearly don't see it that way and THEY are the ones you are going to play with NOT the internet crowd. So smoothing out the rough waters with an apology is prudent to building a good relationship with these people. It lets them know you value their time and opinions. And that is an important first step to getting them to value yours.

That requires you to want a good relationship with these people, of course. In this case, I personally would be less inclined in that direction considering the circumstances.


I'm curious about what happened to the dragon. You stopped the Magus from fighting, (which was good and not a reason to fall because "bros before foes," is nowhere on the paladin code and even if it was, you didn't kill him, you knocked him out.) But you never said what happened with the dragon. Presumably it was still attacking or was it incapacitated or killed by the rest of the party?


Madokar Valortouched wrote:


For your average intelligent item, the answer would be yes. But the text for the Bladebound Magus states that nobody knows where Black Blades come from or how they are made. They just show up whenever a Bladebound Magus has become strong enough to wield them.

I wasn't aware of the bladebound archetype. I do question whether the blade's special purpose was rolled, or decided by the DM. And if it was decided, was it before or after the DM knew that you were playing a Paladin? And if it was after, was the DM secretly arranging a point of inter-party conflict? Just some last minute thoughts before I get ready for work.


Aranna wrote:

How does apologizing set any kind of bad precedent? You are new. You went against the whole group in an argument. It doesn't matter that they are wrong since they clearly don't see it that way and THEY are the ones you are going to play with NOT the internet crowd. So smoothing out the rough waters with an apology is prudent to building a good relationship with these people. It lets them know you value their time and opinions. And that is an important first step to getting them to value yours.

For example:
"I am totally sorry guys for starting an argument the other day. I clearly have a different take on the paladin code than the group. Next time I will stat up an inquisitor so we don't have these issues. And again thanks for letting me play with you guys. I am having a great time."
How can that be bad? It shows consideration not weakness...

That's entirely dependent upon the personalities of the GM and the other party members. If this were a "could go either way" type of ruling then it might be reasonable for the OP to just say, "well since this is your campaign I'll defer to your judgment". That's not the case here though. Instead, the GM is barring OP from further using an entire class (which would be a really big deal to me, since that's a major character decision) on a whim because he clearly doesn't understand alignments/paladins, set the OP up either intentionally or unintentionally to fail, and did this all without warning. With a GM like that, either OP will have to be happy playing an on-the-rails style of game where the GM could just decide to negate player choices out of the blue, or he'll have to find a new group. I see very little chance of this having an ultimately mutual diplomatic outcome.


John Napier 698 wrote:
Rysky wrote:

There's not much to talk about Aranna since you seem to have come into this conversation on the position that the OP is in the wrong and should apologize... for being bullied.

Add that with any attempts for OP to stand up for themselves is seen as "needlessly arguing" and, yeah...

Aranna wrote:
The GM is final authority on alignments and codes. If the whole world thinks the GM is wrong it doesn't matter.
...
If this situation is not about "fragging" a player for playing a Paladin, then it is about hazing a player new to the group, which is just as morally wrong.

Do you guys read posts?

I said the OP is right.

Also I have seen NO indication of hazing or fragging from the OP.

The apology is to smooth hurt feelings NOT to say he was wrong about his stance.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
That may be the underlying meaning, but it's a huge stretch to say that "brothers before whores" isn't misogynistic.
"Bros before hoes" =/= "brothers before whores". For one, "hoe" isn't generally used as an abbreviation of "whore" (which in itself is not a misogynistic word, since it refers to a profession). Second, as I mentioned above, "bro" and "hoe" can both refer to men and women, so you're comparing apples and oranges.
1) I've never heard a guy called a "hoe" before.

Really? I hear it all the time, usually from women, more specifically from the latinas that I know so it may be a cultural thing.

Quote:
2) I have never heard it NOT be an abbreviation for "whore".

I've only ever heard it be used to mean "someone who is just in it for sex", which is not what "whore" means.

Quote:
3) Just because you can call a sex worker that doesn't make it any less misogynistic or demeaning.

It's not inherently either misogynistic or demeaning to begin with. Whore simply means, "person who has sex for money". It's no more demeaning or misogynistic than "hooker" or "prostitute". They're synonyms, no more and no less. Now if someone is taking that to be an insult, then it's contextual and outside of the scope of this discussion.

Quote:
4) Being a sex worker does not give other people the right to insult or demean them.
I never said that it does. Refer to my response to point number 3 for this one as well.

1) *shrugs*

2) and I've only ever heard used as a stand in for whore, which is used as a slur.

3) yes it is. It may have just been a synonym at one point but now all it is is a misogynistic slur. Meanings and perceptions of words change over time.

4) I wa stating that as a continuation of 3.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Aranna wrote:
How does apologizing set any kind of bad precedent? You are new. You went against the whole group in an argument. It doesn't matter that they are wrong since they clearly don't see it that way and THEY are the ones you are going to play with NOT the internet crowd. So smoothing out the rough waters with an apology is prudent to building a good relationship with these people. It lets them know you value their time and opinions. And that is an important first step to getting them to value yours.
That requires you to want a good relationship with these people, of course. In this case, I personally would be less inclined in that direction considering the circumstances.

If you don't want a good relationship with a group you should probably find a different group. But it sounds like Madokar wants to stay in this group and building up friendships would make that so much better.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

"Smooth hurt feelings" my peachy white buttocks.

Apologise for wrongdoing, absolutely. But the OP has done nothing wrong. So what should do? Passive-aggressively say "I'm sorry you're a jerk..."?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
That may be the underlying meaning, but it's a huge stretch to say that "brothers before whores" isn't misogynistic.
"Bros before hoes" =/= "brothers before whores". For one, "hoe" isn't generally used as an abbreviation of "whore" (which in itself is not a misogynistic word, since it refers to a profession). Second, as I mentioned above, "bro" and "hoe" can both refer to men and women, so you're comparing apples and oranges.
1) I've never heard a guy called a "hoe" before.

Really? I hear it all the time, usually from women, more specifically from the latinas that I know so it may be a cultural thing.

Quote:
2) I have never heard it NOT be an abbreviation for "whore".

I've only ever heard it be used to mean "someone who is just in it for sex", which is not what "whore" means.

Quote:
3) Just because you can call a sex worker that doesn't make it any less misogynistic or demeaning.

It's not inherently either misogynistic or demeaning to begin with. Whore simply means, "person who has sex for money". It's no more demeaning or misogynistic than "hooker" or "prostitute". They're synonyms, no more and no less. Now if someone is taking that to be an insult, then it's contextual and outside of the scope of this discussion.

Quote:
4) Being a sex worker does not give other people the right to insult or demean them.
I never said that it does. Refer to my response to point number 3 for this one as well.

1) *shrugs*

2) and I've only ever heard used as a stand in for whore, which is used as a slur.

3) yes it is. It may have just been a synonym at one point but now all it is is a misogynistic slur. Meanings and perceptions of words change over time.

4) I wa stating that as a continuation of 3.

On this I am going to have to agree with Rysky. It like so many other common phrases is misogynistic.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
John Napier 698 wrote:
Rysky wrote:

There's not much to talk about Aranna since you seem to have come into this conversation on the position that the OP is in the wrong and should apologize... for being bullied.

Add that with any attempts for OP to stand up for themselves is seen as "needlessly arguing" and, yeah...

Aranna wrote:
The GM is final authority on alignments and codes. If the whole world thinks the GM is wrong it doesn't matter.
...
If this situation is not about "fragging" a player for playing a Paladin, then it is about hazing a player new to the group, which is just as morally wrong.

Do you guys read posts?

I said the OP is right.

Also I have seen NO indication of hazing or fragging from the OP.

The apology is to smooth hurt feelings NOT to say he was wrong about his stance.

Hazing and Fragging towards the OP.

The only one's whose feelings matter in this equation is the OP, not the GM. The GM should apologize to them, not the other way around.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I have only heard 'hoes' refer to women as well. The phrase in question is VERY offensive.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Eviljames wrote:
I'm curious about what happened to the dragon. You stopped the Magus from fighting, (which was good and not a reason to fall because "bros before foes," is nowhere on the paladin code and even if it was, you didn't kill him, you knocked him out.) But you never said what happened with the dragon. Presumably it was still attacking or was it incapacitated or killed by the rest of the party?

As soon as the Magus was knocked out, he dropped his Black Blade. At which point the dragon grabbed the Blade by her claws and destroyed it. This restored her to her senses and she stopped fighting.

After which, we entered a dialogue. The party bard made a run while everybody else was fighting to raid the dragon's hoard and stuff it all in the portable hole. Among the items was a platinum holy symbol of Sarenrae.

When asked as to why she had this item in her possession, she said it was part of her payment to guard the section of the temple we were in and to prevent intruders from heading deeper inside. She was paid by a vampire follower of Sarenrae, which opened a can of worms. As we talked, we were able to convince her to leave the temple after we gave her some of our treasure.

Now admittedly, this made her more of a mercenary than most silver dragons in the world. I chalked it up to her still being at a young age and she was trying to find her way in the world. At any rate, she was not evil, since she did not register as such when I still had Detect Evil. Even then, she gave us a good warning not to enter the chamber before the whole mess started, and she even tried to use nonlethal force on us before she was overtaken by her Black Blade.


Rysky wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
That may be the underlying meaning, but it's a huge stretch to say that "brothers before whores" isn't misogynistic.
"Bros before hoes" =/= "brothers before whores". For one, "hoe" isn't generally used as an abbreviation of "whore" (which in itself is not a misogynistic word, since it refers to a profession). Second, as I mentioned above, "bro" and "hoe" can both refer to men and women, so you're comparing apples and oranges.
1) I've never heard a guy called a "hoe" before.

Really? I hear it all the time, usually from women, more specifically from the latinas that I know so it may be a cultural thing.

Quote:
2) I have never heard it NOT be an abbreviation for "whore".

I've only ever heard it be used to mean "someone who is just in it for sex", which is not what "whore" means.

Quote:
3) Just because you can call a sex worker that doesn't make it any less misogynistic or demeaning.

It's not inherently either misogynistic or demeaning to begin with. Whore simply means, "person who has sex for money". It's no more demeaning or misogynistic than "hooker" or "prostitute". They're synonyms, no more and no less. Now if someone is taking that to be an insult, then it's contextual and outside of the scope of this discussion.

Quote:
4) Being a sex worker does not give other people the right to insult or demean them.
I never said that it does. Refer to my response to point number 3 for this one as well.

1) *shrugs*

2) and I've only ever heard used as a stand in for whore, which is used as a slur.

3) yes it is. It may have just been a synonym at one point but now all it is is a misogynistic slur. Meanings and perceptions of words change over time.

4) I wa stating that as a continuation of 3.

It may be a slur in your discourse communities, but that in no way makes it universally so. Really, since it seems we just have differing experiences with the words in question, the end point is that it's unfair to categorize the term "bros before hoes", or more importantly its use in this case, as inherently misogynistic (since there's no way for either of us to know the user's intentions or tendencies in regards to the words).


Chemlak wrote:

"Smooth hurt feelings" my peachy white buttocks.

Apologise for wrongdoing, absolutely. But the OP has done nothing wrong. So what should do? Passive-aggressively say "I'm sorry you're a jerk..."?

o.O

You are clearly not very good at apologizing. Best to use something like my example I posted earlier.


Madokar Valortouched wrote:
Eviljames wrote:
I'm curious about what happened to the dragon. You stopped the Magus from fighting, (which was good and not a reason to fall because "bros before foes," is nowhere on the paladin code and even if it was, you didn't kill him, you knocked him out.) But you never said what happened with the dragon. Presumably it was still attacking or was it incapacitated or killed by the rest of the party?

As soon as the Magus was knocked out, he dropped his Black Blade. At which point the dragon grabbed the Blade by her claws and destroyed it. This restored her to her senses and she stopped fighting.

After which, we entered a dialogue. The party bard made a run while everybody else was fighting to raid the dragon's hoard and stuff it all in the portable hole. Among the items was a platinum holy symbol of Sarenrae.

When asked as to why she had this item in her possession, she said it was part of her payment to guard the section of the temple we were in and to prevent intruders from heading deeper inside. She was paid by a vampire follower of Sarenrae, which opened a can of worms. As we talked, we were able to convince her to leave the temple after we gave her some of our treasure.

Now admittedly, this made her more of a mercenary than most silver dragons in the world. I chalked it up to her still being at a young age and she was trying to find her way in the world. At any rate, she was not evil, since she did not register as such when I still had Detect Evil. Even then, she gave us a good warning not to enter the chamber before the whole mess started, and she even tried to use nonlethal force on us before she was overtaken by her Black Blade.

Sounds like fun. Hopefully the loss of his Black Blade will restore some peace in the party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:


As soon as the Magus was knocked out, he dropped his Black Blade. At which point the dragon grabbed the Blade by her claws and destroyed it. This restored her to her senses and she stopped fighting.
...

Sounds like fun. Hopefully the loss of his Black Blade will restore some peace in the party.

The Black Blade is one of the Bladebound Magus's key class features. The Magus is going to want to get the Black Blade back, and he can do so through a ritual. Without his Blade, he'd be better off re-rolling as a standard Magus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Did the magus player know what he was getting into? Because whatever they are, they aren't black blades.

UM, Black Blade wrote:


A black blade always has the same alignment as its wielder and even changes its alignment if its wielder does. The blade typically works toward its wielder's goals, but not always without argument or backlash.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Captain Battletoad wrote:

It may be a slur in your discourse communities, but that in no way makes it universally so. Really, since it seems we just have differing experiences with the words in question, the end point is that it's unfair to categorize the term "bros before hoes", or more importantly its use in this case, as inherently misogynistic (since there's no way for either of us to know the user's intentions or tendencies in regards to the words).

Most of my social interactions is through the use of the internet so I don't really have a "discourse community".

And I can safely say that I'm pretty sure "hoe" is universally a slur, just because it gets thrown around a lot doesn't make it stop being one. So yes, "bros before hoes" is INTENSELY misogynistic. I've never come across an example of it not being.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Madokar Valortouched wrote:
Eviljames wrote:
I'm curious about what happened to the dragon. You stopped the Magus from fighting, (which was good and not a reason to fall because "bros before foes," is nowhere on the paladin code and even if it was, you didn't kill him, you knocked him out.) But you never said what happened with the dragon. Presumably it was still attacking or was it incapacitated or killed by the rest of the party?

As soon as the Magus was knocked out, he dropped his Black Blade. At which point the dragon grabbed the Blade by her claws and destroyed it. This restored her to her senses and she stopped fighting.

After which, we entered a dialogue. The party bard made a run while everybody else was fighting to raid the dragon's hoard and stuff it all in the portable hole. Among the items was a platinum holy symbol of Sarenrae.

When asked as to why she had this item in her possession, she said it was part of her payment to guard the section of the temple we were in and to prevent intruders from heading deeper inside. She was paid by a vampire follower of Sarenrae, which opened a can of worms. As we talked, we were able to convince her to leave the temple after we gave her some of our treasure.

Now admittedly, this made her more of a mercenary than most silver dragons in the world. I chalked it up to her still being at a young age and she was trying to find her way in the world. At any rate, she was not evil, since she did not register as such when I still had Detect Evil. Even then, she gave us a good warning not to enter the chamber before the whole mess started, and she even tried to use nonlethal force on us before she was overtaken by her Black Blade.

Sounds like fun. Hopefully the loss of his Black Blade will restore some peace in the party.

Initially, I thought my fall was an attempt at restoring peace. That's not the case, but it was one of the first thoughts in my head.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:

Did the magus player know what he was getting into? Because whatever they are, they aren't black blades.

UM, Black Blade wrote:


A black blade always has the same alignment as its wielder and even changes its alignment if its wielder does. The blade typically works toward its wielder's goals, but not always without argument or backlash.

I agree with you overall, though it's not quite that cut and dry:

Ultimate Magic, page 47 wrote:
Ego: A black blade starts with an ego of 5, and that ego increases as the blade becomes more powerful, as per Table 1-3 below. In cases where a wielder and the black blade come into conflict, like any intelligent item, a black blade can attempt to exert its dominance, using the rules of page 535 of the Core Rulebook. Due to its flexible and powerful nature, a black blade has a nonstandard ego progression.
"Black Blades sidebar (Ultimate Magic, page 48) wrote:
... A black blade is independently conscious but features some personality traits reflecting its wielder. A black bladealways has the same alignment as its wielder and even changes alignment if the wielder does. The blade typically works towards the wielder's goals, but not always without argument or backlash. Each black blade has a mission, and while sometimes two or more black blades will work in concert, each mission is singular in purpose (the black blade's mission is usually up to the GM and the needs of the campaign or adventure, or a GM can roll randomly for the weapon's purpose using Table 15-25 on page 534 of the Core Rulebook. Some black blades are very open about their missions, but most are secretive. Certain sages have speculated that an invisible hand or arcane purpose moves these weapons.

So the black blade can have a mission that is hidden from the Magus. The black blade can attempt to exert its dominance following rules for intelligent items.

The 'Items Against Characters'' portion of the intelligent items section, however, says that it should only be in the most extreme of circumstances that an intelligent item would try to force its owner into combat. It also says that for an item with a special purpose ("mission" in the case of a black blade), the purpose should be treated reasonably:

Intelligent Items wrote:
An item's purpose must suit the type and alignment of the item and should always be treated reasonably. A purpose of "defeat/slay arcane spellcasters" doesn't mean that the sword forces the wielder to kill every wizard she sees. Nor does it mean that the sword believes it is possible to kill every wizard, sorcerer, and bard in the world. It does mean that the item hates arcane spellcasters and wants to bring the local wizards' cabal to ruin, as well as end the rule of a sorcerer-queen in a nearby land.

A mission of 'destroy all other black blades' seems strange for a chaotic good blade. After all, you're essentially killing a large number of sentient beings for no good reason. That's more appropriate for an evil black blade than for a good one, IMO, and is contrary to the blade's alignment.

And a black blade with that sort of mission can still show discretion in how it acts. It is, after all, intelligent, and pulling the kind of shenanigans described is likely to get it melting down for scrap iron, as some in this thread are suggesting.

Thus, it seems that while the rules for the black blade weren't completely broken, the GM misapplied or misunderstands the rules for intelligent items and how they interact with characters, and chose a poor mission for the black blade.

Sovereign Court

Omnitricks wrote:
Quintain wrote:

All Paladins should pick up the "Golden Legion's Stayed Blade" feat when at all possible.

It ensures that you can do lethal damage without having the killing blow (making you be able to pull the punch), instead only knocking someone unconscious.

Quote:


Apparently, the GM viewed spilling the blood of an ally as an evil act and betrayal of the paladin code.
This is why I don't play paladins.
That is one convenient feat. Hell even my rogues would take it.

You could just take the Blade of Mercy trait instead.


Rysky wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:

It may be a slur in your discourse communities, but that in no way makes it universally so. Really, since it seems we just have differing experiences with the words in question, the end point is that it's unfair to categorize the term "bros before hoes", or more importantly its use in this case, as inherently misogynistic (since there's no way for either of us to know the user's intentions or tendencies in regards to the words).

Most of my social interactions is through the use of the internet so I don't really have a "discourse community".

And I can safely say that I'm pretty sure "hoe" is universally a slur, just because it gets thrown around a lot doesn't make it stop being one. So yes, "bros before hoes" is INTENSELY misogynistic. I've never come across an example of it not being.

I was referring to "whore" not inherently being a slur, not "hoe". Nonetheless, as I said before, "hoe" isn't universally used exclusively against women, so to say that it is absolutely misogynistic in this case or any other where you're not familiar with the speaker's use of the word is inaccurate. It's definitely a slur in every case I've ever seen, but not in any way inherently sexist. Also, the medium through which you communicate in no way impacts whether or not you are a member of a discourse community. You're actively engaging in one right now.

Sovereign Court

Aranna wrote:

How does apologizing set any kind of bad precedent? You are new. You went against the whole group in an argument. It doesn't matter that they are wrong since they clearly don't see it that way and THEY are the ones you are going to play with NOT the internet crowd. So smoothing out the rough waters with an apology is prudent to building a good relationship with these people. It lets them know you value their time and opinions. And that is an important first step to getting them to value yours.

For example:
"I am totally sorry guys for starting an argument the other day. I clearly have a different take on the paladin code than the group. Next time I will stat up an inquisitor so we don't have these issues. And again thanks for letting me play with you guys. I am having a great time."
How can that be bad? It shows consideration not weakness...

I agree that it might be the best to back off from the conflict, but actually apologizing may just be painting a target on his forehead.

He shouldn't say that's he's sorry for "starting an argument the other day"... because he shouldn't be and such is saying that they were in the wrong for doing so.

Perhaps, "sorry that the disagreement came up" which admits to no wrongdoing.

Sovereign Court

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
You could just take the Blade of Mercy trait instead.

Blade of mercy trait requires Sarenrae, the OPs paladin is Iomedae.


Madokar Valortouched wrote:


Same here. And I'm sorry if I jumped the gun on wondering if this should be submitted to be a FAQ issue. I just started posting here, and I was a bit concerned by some of the aggression towards my GM.

No actually a rules change there would be a good idea.

"A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and class features (including the service of the paladin's mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any further in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description in Spell Lists), as appropriate. .. A Paladin falling should not be a unilateral action on the part of the GM, it should be discussed and agreed to by the player. "

There is rarely a good reason for a DM to make a paladin fall. Now yes, there are a few immature players who might want a murdering, raping, torturing Paladin and wont agree his paladin should fall. In which case that player should simply be uninvited to the game.

I was a little hasty in suggesting to the OP that he find a new game. He should simply sit down with the DM explain he doesnt care for this, and it makes the GAME less fun for him. If the DM insists, and the OP likes the group, the Op should have a new character ready, and then say "Ok, here's in my new character, i am no longer playing the paladin."

Sovereign Court

Firebug wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
You could just take the Blade of Mercy trait instead.
Blade of mercy trait requires Sarenrae, the OPs paladin is Iomedae.

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant for Omnitricks's rogues.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I have only heard 'hoes' refer to women as well. The phrase in question is VERY offensive.

Full agreement here. Not only does "bros before hoes" mean your male buddies before women, it equates virtually all women with whores or at least as sex objects for men.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

Sounds like fun. Hopefully the loss of his Black Blade will restore some peace in the party.

Yeah. Fun. Hey the DM just stole a whole slew of class features from one player and now you think it's OK for him to steal yet another class feature from another player. What's next- steal the wizards spellbook?

Shadow Lodge

*spits out drink and starts looking for dopplegangers*


Aranna wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Aranna wrote:

I fail to see where he says he is being bullied. If you and Rysky are seeing something there I don't then please enlighten me. The worst thing the OP talks about is falling for something he shouldn't have fallen for. And that is due to different interpretations of the paladin code. The only other fault I could see is the GM plot device which would bother me but doesn't seem to bother the OP.

The GM is final authority on alignments and codes. If the whole world thinks the GM is wrong it doesn't matter. Inside his own game the GM is right. As a player you really have just four options:
1- Reject the GM and leave the game. Pretty drastic and it sure won't make you any friends.
2- Avoid the issue by avoiding classes with specific code or alignment issues. It won't solve anything but it won't cost you anything either.
3- Accept the GMs interpretation and start playing by his rules. This will make the GM happy but may be a bitter pill to swallow especially after a heated argument.
4- Smooth Talk your GM into seeing things your way. This is best used with friends though and since he is new it is highly unlikely to work.

Options that will do harm:
5- Argue endlessly about it. NOBODY wants to hear someone whine and the group already is behind the GM on this.
6- Become a problem player till you get your way. Like the earlier bad advice about going antipaladin in a good group. This throwing a tantrum option is highly likely to get him tossed unceremoniously from the group.

I recommended option 2 as his best course as a newbie.
But why apologize if he did nothing wrong? I may be wrong but it sounded like there already was a heated argument which he lost. The group dynamic will be far more inclined to support him in the future if he falls on his sword here. And the group dynamic is FAR more powerful than being right or wrong. If he apologizes for the disruption of play rather than his stance he can win hearts without going back on his earlier

...

So the OP should apologize for falling? That's what I'm reading. At no moment the OP caused an argument. He did something he thought it was good, and suddenly the GM goes "you fall".

The OP is clearly confused as to why he's just fallen, so he ask him GM, to get a crap reply like "bros before foes". OP further investigates why he has fallen, getting again crap answers, which are not clear nor defining as to why he actually fell.

Imagine the following scenario:
Wizard cast spells
GM: nothing happened, your spell fails
Wizard: why? I wasn't close to any enemies, no reason for it to fail
GM: There was too much wind and you fail to articulate the necessary gestures to cast the spell

According to you the GM is right, the OP should shut up, and apologize???

GM just invalidated the entire's OP class without warning and now he's a lousy fighter.
If the OP accept this, what does stop the GM from invalidating every single class he creates?

Fighter: your weapon is rusty, it doesn't work anymore. You must use fists. So OP apologizes for rustiness on his weapon and switch classes to monk
Monk: you broke your arm, but can't use any other part of your body because of your broken arm. OP apologizes for breaking his arm, and now rolls an NPC because no matter what he's gonna be useless anyway.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

Coming a bit late to the discussion, but as a GM I would NOT have had a paladin fall under such circumstances. Sometimes standing up to your friends takes more courage than falling in with them (to use some Dumbledorian wisdom).

The other players may trust the GM, but he's now given the OP reason to DIStrust him. I'd tell him flat out that his reasoning is questionable, and if he expects you to continue on in playing the fallen paladin rather than starting up a new character unencumbered by questionable moral restrictions, he has to offer up a good story arc and opportunity at redemption... and soon.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Roleplaying Guild, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Captain Battletoad wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:

It may be a slur in your discourse communities, but that in no way makes it universally so. Really, since it seems we just have differing experiences with the words in question, the end point is that it's unfair to categorize the term "bros before hoes", or more importantly its use in this case, as inherently misogynistic (since there's no way for either of us to know the user's intentions or tendencies in regards to the words).

Most of my social interactions is through the use of the internet so I don't really have a "discourse community".

And I can safely say that I'm pretty sure "hoe" is universally a slur, just because it gets thrown around a lot doesn't make it stop being one. So yes, "bros before hoes" is INTENSELY misogynistic. I've never come across an example of it not being.

I was referring to "whore" not inherently being a slur, not "hoe". Nonetheless, as I said before, "hoe" isn't universally used exclusively against women, so to say that it is absolutely misogynistic in this case or any other where you're not familiar with the speaker's use of the word is inaccurate. It's definitely a slur in every case I've ever seen, but not in any way inherently sexist. Also, the medium through which you communicate in no way impacts whether or not you are a member of a discourse community. You're actively engaging in one right now.

Again, just because you can call a man that doesn't make it stop being a misogynistic slur, and it is absolutely sexist. And it IS inherently sexist, that's exactly why it's a misogynistic slur even if you don't direct it a women.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Bros before hoes is a terrible phrase, mostly because it implies that a man spending time with his lady should never supersede wanting to spend time with his male friends. This is belittling to the woman in question, and the person who is supposedly your friend doesn't take your feelings for her seriously.
It also comes up when a male's male friend has a go at his girlfriend, either trying to bed her, or otherwise disrespect her, he should let it go, because the male-male friendship is somehow automatically more important than his relationship with his girlfriend, and degrades her to being an object unworthy of consideration. This is often used by douchebags to justify their douchebaggery and try to stay being friends with people they've been c+&~s to, cuz, hey man, it's just a chick.
The whole idea is pretty much anti-chivalrous, and disrespectful all around.


DrDeth wrote:
bbangerter wrote:


And its a very fair point for them to make, particularly the GM. We have your side of the story, but as I mentioned in my first post, there is a lot of context we don't have. You've given us what you are able, but the GM's side of the story would provide a lot more. Something you should ask yourself, "Do you trust this GM to make your paladin falling an enjoyable, and good story point?" Or do you feel the GM is simply being malicious?

, "Do you trust this GM to make your paladin falling an enjoyable, and good story point?"

There is no such thing- unless the player agrees before hand.

Do you trust your Dm that destroying your wizards spellbook will make a enjoyable, and good story point?"

Do you trust your Dm that cutting off your rogues fingers will make a enjoyable, and good story point?"

Do you trust your Dm that making your fighter a parplegic will make a enjoyable, and good story point?"

I disagree. There aren't very many GM's I'd trust to turn it into a good story, and the offhand "bros before foes" comment makes it sound like this particular GM would be among those I don't trust. But those few GMs I'd trust would also not set me up in a lose-lose situation - so ultimately it would be my choice to act in a way that made me fall (so non-verbal consent and agreement between us in that regard). But those GMs would not need to pull me aside and talk about upcoming story and ask me if its okay to have my paladin fall.

Likewise, if my wizard characters ever get captured, I fully expect them to lose their spellbooks in whole or in part. I don't complain that my wizard is 'unplayable' while I work out how to get access to spells again. But this would again be a GM playing things out in the story, not a "You wake up in the morning and your spell book is gone, but that is the only thing missing from the entire party - just because I felt like neutering the caster." Those same GMs I'd trust with the paladin fall I'd trust with the missing spellbook - and that is a very short list.

For the last two, never had a rogue character get caught stealing, for which the punishment is cutting off a hand?

Never had a fighter fail his will save against hold person? (Granted, it is known that is short duration, but so is a paladin fall if he seeks an atonement - relatively speaking). The principle however is the same. Sometimes your character gets neutered for a time, and is perfectly in line with how the game plays out.

But the question is, "Does Madokar Valortouched trust this particular GM to that level?" If not he needs to sit down and have a long talk with his GM about the game being enjoyable or not as others have suggested. If he does trust him, then my advice is "then go ahead and trust him".

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You guys should take the hoe talk to pm's and stop mucking this thread up.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Aranna wrote:

How does apologizing set any kind of bad precedent? You are new. You went against the whole group in an argument. It doesn't matter that they are wrong since they clearly don't see it that way and THEY are the ones you are going to play with NOT the internet crowd. So smoothing out the rough waters with an apology is prudent to building a good relationship with these people. It lets them know you value their time and opinions. And that is an important first step to getting them to value yours.

For example:
"I am totally sorry guys for starting an argument the other day. I clearly have a different take on the paladin code than the group. Next time I will stat up an inquisitor so we don't have these issues. And again thanks for letting me play with you guys. I am having a great time."
How can that be bad? It shows consideration not weakness...

I agree that it might be the best to back off from the conflict, but actually apologizing may just be painting a target on his forehead.

He shouldn't say that's he's sorry for "starting an argument the other day"... because he shouldn't be and such is saying that they were in the wrong for doing so.

Perhaps, "sorry that the disagreement came up" which admits to no wrongdoing.

Yes that would be a perfect change.

101 to 150 of 442 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Fallen Paladin: Does attacking a possessed party member qualify as an Evil Act and Violation of the Paladin Code? All Messageboards

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.