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

Why is undead considered evil?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

401 to 439 of 439 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

That runs contrary to having planet-spanning (or in some cases even interplanetary) churches and racial patron deities. That´s very important because of Pharasma, which is the central repository for knowledge how the planes and souls work.
We also have too many countries or major cities with an overly high percentage of plane-touched.
Then there´s people traveling half the globe to join the crusades in Mendev.

So, no, I think the supernatural aspects are too broadly distributed in the setting, even someone in a far away village will have knowledge.

Do flat earth believers actually exist? I always thought that was some kind of joke. Well, someone can be in denial, but that doesn´t change what the truth is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Wanna know who thinks necromancy isn't evil? Necromancers!

Maybe you need to be more considerate of others opinions and occupation.

So much for the tolerant good.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I recently had a revelation of what Alignment actually is. It gives the probability of what the character's future actions will be

A Good character is more likely to do Good actions in the future. An Evil character is more likely to do Evil actions in the future. A Neutral character is as likely to do Good or Evil actions in the future


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
How much do people on the ground in Golarion really know about the metaphysics of the world they live in? We know this stuff because we read the books which are written with an omniscient narrator (and whose authority over the source material is unquestioned.)

That's just it. They have authority over THEIR source material. Back when the whole "Evil subtype spells are evil actions" thing was exclusively a Golarion thing, having been only established in Golarion in whichever source book came up with it, they weren't overstepping their bounds. Ultimate Intrigue and Horror Adventures, being setting neutral material, don't have the right to just up and dictate that that's how morality works, not even as a "just a default". There are whole sections of Ultimate Campaign and the Gamemastery Guide about making your own world; that is to say, your not-Golarion world that they have no say in, not even by virtue of you merely using their ruleset for adventures in your not-Golarion world.

Their authority over how morality works Golarion? They can have at it. We have the choice to subject ourselves to that farce or houserule the setting into something that isn't an insult to practically the entirety of the human struggle or not play in Golarion at all. But when they've made a game for more than just Golarion that we have not just their express permission to use for more than just Golarion but also explicit guidance on making a not-Golarion setting, we should not then have to sift through all their Golarion-isms just to use the Pathfinder ruleset. I mean, why the catch-22? "Here's how to create your own exciting and engaging setting with our ruleset. God help you, though, if you try to take us up on our offer. Now go back to playing in Golarion like you're supposed to."

There's a section in Horror Adventures about the dire importance of having every player's express consent (not implicit or assumed, but outright stated) before exploring certain horror themes that have the potential to be disturbing on a soul-deep, fundamental level. Well, guess what, folks? Morality is just as fundamental to a person's psyche and blatantly steamrolling over it, just assuming agreement and consent the way Paizo does when they create a ruleset (not just their own setting but a ruleset ostensibly advertised as being for any setting) requiring morality be some objective force in the multiverse AND that it be an observable phenomenon, is just as inconsiderate. If I'm agreeing to play Pathfinder, I am not explicitly or implicitly saying I'm okay with, say, rape or body horror being a constant theme in the game. In like fashion, if I'm agreeing to play Pathfinder, I am neither explicitly nor implicitly saying I'm okay with, say, casting Infernal Healing being an evil act just because of some descriptor keyword.

They vastly overstepped themselves. That's the issue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The "get express consent before you do anything really weird" I think is a meta consideration as in "here is how you, as a human being, ethically run this material." I mean, that's how I run every game (I us the X-Card system and would encourage others to do so as well.)

I would consider the book inappropriate if it didn't have that disclaimer and further discussion about "how to run a horror game that disconcerts people in a fun way rather than simply traumatizing them." I mean, that's what that book is for. I mean, there are literally people in this hobby who don't think that locking a claustrophobic player in a closet without their consent until they freak out is a fun and good thing to do in a horror game. Don't play games with those people, and if you're thinking of becoming that kind of person don't.

Anything about the fiction or the metaphysics of Paizo's game though, just feel free to ignore. They have literally printed rules for "running Pathfinder without alignment" (they're in Unchained) so it's not like they're forcing you to turn evil if you cast infernal healing (since evil doesn't exist if you use those rules.) I mean, being told "your character is now evil" is probably not traumatizing on the same level as a lot of those horror themes could be, since your character is not literally yourself (and the spell literally has "Infernal Healing" on the label, it should not be surprising that it's not good for your soul.)

Silver Crusade

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

That and Evil Spells being Evil isn't something Golarion-centric or even new to plenty of GMs and Players, when I first started playing in 3rd we were running off the assumption that [Aligned] spells were Aligned acts.

And we were playing in Eberron of all things.


My problem with alignment in Pathfinder, to be honest, is that Paizo tried to remove it as a thing. They all but say, "Ignore Alignment" in the core book save for rare situations.

Since they removed all RP aspect from it by making it reactive rather than proscriptive all that is left is mechanics. Which they also didn't do much with.

In my games it has forced a house rule that restricts certain spells.

Namely you can't cast a spell with the evil or good descriptor unless you are of evil or good alignment. This makes neutrality suffer a little as well.

This works really well at making alignment matter and doesn't restrict RP. Your character is just limited in some spells because they lack the compatible energy to fuel it.

Silver Crusade

Purple Overkill wrote:

That runs contrary to having planet-spanning (or in some cases even interplanetary) churches and racial patron deities. That´s very important because of Pharasma, which is the central repository for knowledge how the planes and souls work.

We also have too many countries or major cities with an overly high percentage of plane-touched.
Then there´s people traveling half the globe to join the crusades in Mendev.

So, no, I think the supernatural aspects are too broadly distributed in the setting, even someone in a far away village will have knowledge.

Do flat earth believers actually exist? I always thought that was some kind of joke. Well, someone can be in denial, but that doesn´t change what the truth is.

Well, we have a hard time understanding how other people live their daily lives and have huge segments of the population disbelieve proven scientific fact on a planet that is essentially connected in real time with the aggregate of what amounts to all human knowledge at our fingertips. I have no problem believing a planet roughly on par with the Middle Ages, with dozens of competing theologies, and the addition of magic so that you'd have a good reason to question just about everything you see or hear would have wildly varied ideas about the nature of the universe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Tectorman wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
How much do people on the ground in Golarion really know about the metaphysics of the world they live in? We know this stuff because we read the books which are written with an omniscient narrator (and whose authority over the source material is unquestioned.)

That's just it. They have authority over THEIR source material. Back when the whole "Evil subtype spells are evil actions" thing was exclusively a Golarion thing, having been only established in Golarion in whichever source book came up with it, they weren't overstepping their bounds. Ultimate Intrigue and Horror Adventures, being setting neutral material, don't have the right to just up and dictate that that's how morality works, not even as a "just a default". There are whole sections of Ultimate Campaign and the Gamemastery Guide about making your own world; that is to say, your not-Golarion world that they have no say in, not even by virtue of you merely using their ruleset for adventures in your not-Golarion world.

Their authority over how morality works Golarion? They can have at it. We have the choice to subject ourselves to that farce or houserule the setting into something that isn't an insult to practically the entirety of the human struggle or not play in Golarion at all. But when they've made a game for more than just Golarion that we have not just their express permission to use for more than just Golarion but also explicit guidance on making a not-Golarion setting, we should not then have to sift through all their Golarion-isms just to use the Pathfinder ruleset. I mean, why the catch-22? "Here's how to create your own exciting and engaging setting with our ruleset. God help you, though, if you try to take us up on our offer. Now go back to playing in Golarion like you're supposed to."

There's a section in Horror Adventures about the dire importance of having every player's express consent (not implicit or assumed, but outright stated) before exploring certain horror themes that...

Err, you really think Paizo don't "have the authority" to write whatever they want in their rules?

I mean you don't have to like it - they aren't necessarily going to come up with 'the best' answer to every question. But surely they can print whatever they want and then we get to choose what to use and what not to. Similarly they can change and/or add new stuff if they think it's a good idea?

I don't think the issue is that they 'vastly overstepped themselves'. I think your expectations are just out of sync with what the world of RPG publishing offers.


Hello,

Meet Joe Wizard. Joe is a neutral wizard and cares nothing about the cosmic balance of good and evil. Joe just studies magic and believes that the world will bend to his will if he just applies himself.

Go Joe!

Joe uses lots of summon monster spells - These spells don't *really* summon anything to the material plane so they can't cause any lasting damage - and they have a wide variety of options useful to Joe in his role in a party.

Joe makes sure to track every time he summons an Angel to help his group out - and summons a Demon afterwords so that his alignment and morality don't shift suddenly without his control or consent.

Be like Joe - track your aligned actions so that you can cancel them out - otherwise some outside power will change your personality against your will!

/s

(seriously though - that's what these rules make magic feel like - especially when not using a character that is defined by alignment such as a cleric).


Tectorman wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
How much do people on the ground in Golarion really know about the metaphysics of the world they live in? We know this stuff because we read the books which are written with an omniscient narrator (and whose authority over the source material is unquestioned.)

That's just it. They have authority over THEIR source material. Back when the whole "Evil subtype spells are evil actions" thing was exclusively a Golarion thing, having been only established in Golarion in whichever source book came up with it, they weren't overstepping their bounds. Ultimate Intrigue and Horror Adventures, being setting neutral material, don't have the right to just up and dictate that that's how morality works, not even as a "just a default". There are whole sections of Ultimate Campaign and the Gamemastery Guide about making your own world; that is to say, your not-Golarion world that they have no say in, not even by virtue of you merely using their ruleset for adventures in your not-Golarion world.

Their authority over how morality works Golarion? They can have at it. We have the choice to subject ourselves to that farce or houserule the setting into something that isn't an insult to practically the entirety of the human struggle or not play in Golarion at all. But when they've made a game for more than just Golarion that we have not just their express permission to use for more than just Golarion but also explicit guidance on making a not-Golarion setting, we should not then have to sift through all their Golarion-isms just to use the Pathfinder ruleset. I mean, why the catch-22? "Here's how to create your own exciting and engaging setting with our ruleset. God help you, though, if you try to take us up on our offer. Now go back to playing in Golarion like you're supposed to."

There's a section in Horror Adventures about the dire importance of having every player's express consent (not implicit or assumed, but outright stated) before exploring certain horror themes that...

Simple solution there would be for any given DM that doesn't want a given spell to count as evil in their personal setting to simply ignore/remove the alignment descriptor for that setting. No one is going to force them to abide by it.


FormerFiend wrote:
Simple solution there would be for any given DM that doesn't want a given spell to count as evil in their personal setting to simply ignore/remove the alignment descriptor for that setting. No one is going to force them to abide by it.

The problem of course has nothing to do with the GM - who always can do that (and always could) - it's when the player doesn't want that game and the GM uses 'it's in the book' to justify their position.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ckorik wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:
Simple solution there would be for any given DM that doesn't want a given spell to count as evil in their personal setting to simply ignore/remove the alignment descriptor for that setting. No one is going to force them to abide by it.

The problem of course has nothing to do with the GM - who always can do that (and always could) - it's when the player doesn't want that game and the GM uses 'it's in the book' to justify their position.

Communication communication communication.

If you're a player that feels particularly passionate about this, and you're playing with a DM who's DMing a game in a homebrew setting where they make the rules, sit down and have a conversation with them as to whether or not they've actually put thought into whether they actually want a given spell to be evil by the rules of their world and they aren't just doing it "because the book says".

That being said, one should also be perfectly prepared for their DM to rule that yeah, they do want those spells to be evil, for whatever reason.


FormerFiend wrote:
Ckorik wrote:
FormerFiend wrote:
Simple solution there would be for any given DM that doesn't want a given spell to count as evil in their personal setting to simply ignore/remove the alignment descriptor for that setting. No one is going to force them to abide by it.

The problem of course has nothing to do with the GM - who always can do that (and always could) - it's when the player doesn't want that game and the GM uses 'it's in the book' to justify their position.

Communication communication communication.

If you're a player that feels particularly passionate about this, and you're playing with a DM who's DMing a game in a homebrew setting where they make the rules, sit down and have a conversation with them as to whether or not they've actually put thought into whether they actually want a given spell to be evil by the rules of their world and they aren't just doing it "because the book says".

That being said, one should also be perfectly prepared for their DM to rule that yeah, they do want those spells to be evil, for whatever reason.

Analysis first, communication second.

Let´s be honest about it: "Evil" gets cool and powerful toys as this is basically a heroic fantasy game and gms need an arsenal to challenge players with, on the condition that we stay within the boundaries of the rules and it can still be a challenge vs. a whole group. So naturally, "our" toys are more powerful, else we couldn't´t really work within the indented system.

In addition, the rise and prominence of the "dark" or "anti-" hero using the weapons of the enemy to beat them (and look cool while doing so) gets more pronounced, while the "white knight" is getting more and more of a bad rep.

Third, too many players opt into the "consumer entitlement mentality". This doesn´t work in a game that is collaborative and competitive at the same time.

... then comes communication.


Sheness the Hollow wrote:
Ciaran Barnes wrote:
Wanna know who thinks necromancy isn't evil? Necromancers!

Maybe you need to be more considerate of others opinions and occupation.

So much for the tolerant good.

In the earldom I hail from, necromancers are required to register with the local bailiff and surrender all black onyx in their possession. Zombie attacks are down almost 80%.


^I guess only 20% of Necromancers figured out to leave the black onyx in the possession of an associate some random jewelry banker who just happens to follow them around . . . .


UnArcaneElection wrote:

^I guess only 20% of Necromancers figured out to leave the black onyx in the possession of an associate some random jewelry banker who just happens to follow them around . . . .

If they want my onyx, they are welcome to come take it.

Whether they make it through the hallways of death alive is an entirely different matter.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pfft, who carries onyx anymore? Blood Money is what all the cool kids are using.


Sheness the Hollow wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^I guess only 20% of Necromancers figured out to leave the black onyx in the possession of an associate some random jewelry banker who just happens to follow them around . . . .

If they want my onyx, they are welcome to come take it.

Whether they make it through the hallways of death alive is an entirely different matter.

are you talking about the necromancers or the people who dislike necromancers?


Isonaroc wrote:
Pfft, who carries onyx anymore? Blood Money is what all the cool kids are using.

unfortunately blood money cant be used to make undead by an undead necromancer

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
Pfft, who carries onyx anymore? Blood Money is what all the cool kids are using.
unfortunately blood money cant be used to make undead by an undead necromancer

Sure you can, that's what Magic Jar and Possession are for.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lady-J wrote:
Sheness the Hollow wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^I guess only 20% of Necromancers figured out to leave the black onyx in the possession of an associate some random jewelry banker who just happens to follow them around . . . .

If they want my onyx, they are welcome to come take it.

Whether they make it through the hallways of death alive is an entirely different matter.

are you talking about the necromancers or the people who dislike necromancers?

Yes.


Sheness the Hollow wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Sheness the Hollow wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^I guess only 20% of Necromancers figured out to leave the black onyx in the possession of an associate some random jewelry banker who just happens to follow them around . . . .

If they want my onyx, they are welcome to come take it.

Whether they make it through the hallways of death alive is an entirely different matter.

are you talking about the necromancers or the people who dislike necromancers?
Yes.

that didn't actually answer the question...


^Actually, it did . . . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Actually, it did . . . .

no it didn't, it wasn't a yes or no question there for a yes is not an applicable answer it would be akin to asking do you want the blue cup or the red cup the answer would be, either the red cup, the blue cup, both or neither.

Silver Crusade

Lady-J wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Actually, it did . . . .

no it didn't, it wasn't a yes or no question there for a yes is not an applicable answer it would be akin to asking do you want the blue cup or the red cup the answer would be, either the red cup, the blue cup, both or neither.

Yes would be a perfectly acceptable answer to that question. A bit smartass, perhaps, but it serves.


Lady-J wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Actually, it did . . . .

no it didn't, it wasn't a yes or no question there for a yes is not an applicable answer it would be akin to asking do you want the blue cup or the red cup the answer would be, either the red cup, the blue cup, both or neither.

You must have not watched (or at least not fully appreciated) Babylon 5 . . . .


2 people marked this as a favorite.

OMG Its both IT MEANS BOTH. Why did I insist on reading more of this worn out thread. *Flips table*


Vidmaster7 wrote:
OMG Its both IT MEANS BOTH. Why did I insist on reading more of this worn out thread. *Flips table*

No, it means one or the other (or possibly both).

"A or B" is true of A is true or B is true.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
OMG Its both IT MEANS BOTH. Why did I insist on reading more of this worn out thread. *Flips table*

It's ok - the Deep6LMNOP thread is this way......

;)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ckorik wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
OMG Its both IT MEANS BOTH. Why did I insist on reading more of this worn out thread. *Flips table*

It's ok - the Deep6LMNOP thread is this way......

;)

Not quite, we can barely keep track of what happens page to page, much less circle back around and bring it up again.


Ckorik wrote:

Hello,

Meet Joe Wizard. Joe is a neutral wizard and cares nothing about the cosmic balance of good and evil. Joe just studies magic and believes that the world will bend to his will if he just applies himself.

Go Joe!

Joe uses lots of summon monster spells - These spells don't *really* summon anything to the material plane so they can't cause any lasting damage - and they have a wide variety of options useful to Joe in his role in a party.

Joe makes sure to track every time he summons an Angel to help his group out - and summons a Demon afterwords so that his alignment and morality don't shift suddenly without his control or consent.

Be like Joe - track your aligned actions so that you can cancel them out - otherwise some outside power will change your personality against your will!

/s

(seriously though - that's what these rules make magic feel like - especially when not using a character that is defined by alignment such as a cleric).

I can totally take Joe one on one.


Because Anti-Life and Souls past their expiration dates don't mix all that good.


You can also put the egg before the chicken.
Evil spells are evil by association.
Just being used by evil people, such as evil necromancers, by implied default, they get the label.


Scythia wrote:
Honestly, developer fiat. They want undead to be Evil, thus they declare it to be so.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

^^^^This.

Any other explanations are really parts of a map to how they got there.

Have they ever actually provided anything along those lines?

All I can recall was a post once giving some vague notion that maybe mindless undead trap some small portion of a creature's soul inside of them that was basically invented on the spot for a forum post rather than having any basis in the rules or lore.

I've also heard rumors about someone having mentioned they couldn't have non-evil/disgusting undead because of children involved in Organized/Convention play.

And, of course, that one dev or another has very particular tastes in horror and works to restrict the work of others to that narrow band.

Envall wrote:

You can also put the egg before the chicken.

Evil spells are evil by association.
Just being used by evil people, such as evil necromancers, by implied default, they get the label.

Suddenly half the spells in the PHB and the majority of iconic Enchantment spells are evil.

Fireball achieves a quantum Good-Evil state.

FormerFiend wrote:
Simple solution there would be for any given DM that doesn't want a given spell to count as evil in their personal setting to simply ignore/remove the alignment descriptor for that setting. No one is going to force them to abide by it.

You vastly underestimate the number of people who basically blindly follow the rules because that's what's printed and the effect that the rules, simply by being what they are and how they are phrased, have on the community, dialogue, and other factors.

That or you're glossing over it overmuch.


Coidzor wrote:


You vastly underestimate the number of people who basically blindly follow the rules because that's what's printed and the effect that the rules, simply by being what they are and how they are phrased, have on the community, dialogue, and other factors.

That or you're glossing over it overmuch.

It feels like a lazy argument intended to shut down any discussion as to why this is a bad rule. Really anything in the rulebook is under the same idea - but we use rules for a reason.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do sort of wonder if the diagetic metaphysical reason meddling with the undead is always evil is left intentionally vague so that individual GMs (or people writing future books) may fill in that blank however they choose.

Insofar something is an observable phenomenon we can know *that* it happens well before we have any clue about *why* it happens (c.f. Quantum Mechanics), so maybe there's some reason that only Pharasma really understands and she's not inclined to explain anything to anyone ever.

I mean, in the setting I run, "creating undead" is about as evil as anything else around, the players know that and there's a reason for this that the players don't know yet (though it will be revealed when appropriate.) The distinction I maintain is that intelligent undead can have any ethics or morality (though maybe inclined towards some things due to rationalizing the realities of their existence; i.e. you gotta eat), it's just that the process of creating them is invariably tangibly evil in a metaphysical sense.

It's not the most satisfying reason, you can't figure it out by reading the books, but I figure you could run a pretty good campaign around revealing the true reason undeath is inherently evil, and it would be a missed opportunity if you eliminated that creative space by explaining it in a splatbook.


Coidzor wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Honestly, developer fiat. They want undead to be Evil, thus they declare it to be so.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

^^^^This.

Any other explanations are really parts of a map to how they got there.

Have they ever actually provided anything along those lines?

All I can recall was a post once giving some vague notion that maybe mindless undead trap some small portion of a creature's soul inside of them that was basically invented on the spot for a forum post rather than having any basis in the rules or lore.

Yes. They have provided something. The exact letter of that is not denoted, but it is very strongly implied.

Rysky linked in this thread: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uc3x?Lawful-Neutral-The-Law-vs-Justice
the posts in James Jacob's thread to answer any questions. Of note is:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=1310?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Q uestions-Here#65498

That post names removing souls (by trapping them somewhere) from the cycle as adjacent to creating undead.


james014Aura wrote:

Yes. They have provided something. The exact letter of that is not denoted, but it is very strongly implied.

Rysky linked in this thread: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uc3x?Lawful-Neutral-The-Law-vs-Justice
the posts in James Jacob's thread to answer any questions. Of note is:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l7ns&page=1310?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Q uestions-Here#65498

That post names removing souls (by trapping them somewhere) from the cycle as adjacent to creating undead.

Sorry, should have been more clear, I meant more have they actually ever made statements about why they've made the design decisions that they did with any actual transparency?

I recall they said at one point that they retconned Juju Oracles because they wanted it to be more special if and when they put in a non-Evil undead creature, but I've never seen any concrete quotes about why they went with the specific direction and departure from their heritage in D&D that they did.

401 to 439 of 439 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Why is undead considered evil? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©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.