Pathfinder Infinite and the ORC License

I have a class published on there under the OGL. I want its mechanics to stay open, but I also want to publish a revision that is compatible with the remaster (with OGC content removed) - preferably giving the revision away for free to everyone who has already bought the first version.

With this announcement, I believe there's no way to do that while keeping the mechanics open to use in 3rd party ORC products.

You are correct. If you want the product to be available to non-Infinite ORC publishers, it shouldn't be released on Infinite. Whether or not you use any of Paizo's setting or flavor elements, by releasing content on Infinite, you're making it inherently part of the brand. If you don't want to tether the mechanics to our non-open IP, Infinite isn't the place to release it.

I just wanted to say. Today I learned paizo created infinite.

I honestly thought it was a place for people to vent their grievances with the system by fixing what isn't broken or breaking what wasn't good enough for them.

As you can see, the few infinite pieces I purchased I was not incredibly impressed with. But I get I'm probably not their target audience.

Still, cool to finally learn it was paizo itself that created it.

As for the orc stuff. What I've gathered from reading it

Infinite is infinite

Orc is orc

Is there a reason why infinites license cannot be just... Done away with and have it be under soley the orc? I am sure there is, but I am not smart enough for it

I just wanted to say. Today I learned paizo created infinite.

I honestly thought it was a place for people to vent their grievances with the system by fixing what isn't broken or breaking what wasn't good enough for them.

As you can see, the few infinite pieces I purchased I was not incredibly impressed with. But I get I'm probably not their target audience.

Still, cool to finally learn it was paizo itself that created it.

As for the orc stuff. What I've gathered from reading it

Infinite is infinite

Orc is orc

Is there a reason why infinites license cannot be just... Done away with and have it be under soley the orc? I am sure there is, but I am not smart enough for it

You might consider looking at Infinite Masters. Infinite Masters are all invited by Paizo.. Some of the infinite masters are actual Paizo employees and freelance writers, and some of the stuff in published Infinite Masters comes from leftover ideas that did have room to fit in the books.

I haven't bought any Pathfinder Infinite content, but the Starfinder Infinite things I have gotten have been really good for the most part. There are a lot more people publishing for Pathfinder Infinite so likely greater variation in quality.

Is there a reason why infinites license cannot be just... Done away with and have it be under soley the orc?

I guess it could, but the ORC doesn't give people permission to use content we want them to be able to use on Infinite. Both Paizo and the Infinite publishers need to agree to terms for how they can and can't use content the ORC doesn't grant them the right to publish.

Infinite lets you use Golarion.

ORC lets you use Pathfinder.

Right?

So I... do not understand at all.

Could I publish fiction set in PF/SF settings on Infinite? Can that be my question one, because that seems to be the easiest.

For question two, could I publish game material such as new enemies or new classes for PF/SF on Infinite? Because I already have done so, using the editions of the game current as of one year ago.

If I was to do the above in two weeks' time, would that material need to be in the new ORC-based mechanics system? Because my (admitably very not-understanding understanding of the post) is that such would not be possible?

For question 3, could I create the above new enemies or new classes for a setting other than PF/SF, such as a homebrew, on Infinite? If so, would it need to be done under new system, or previous system? Or not permissible at all?

Next question - same, but for adventures? If I create an adventure set in Golarion, using PF2 mechanics, can that be released on Infinite? What about post-ORC mechanics? What about an adventure using either PF2 or post-ORC PF2 mechanics but NOT set on Golarion?

Next question - spells. Some of the spells have changed under ORC. Does material CURRENTLY published on Infinite which reference spells need to be changed?

I've been holding off on working on publishing more material on Infinite until ORC was established, set up and had this in place, so I have been watching for this post but I've really tried and I really just don't grasp any of this at all. Sorry!

So, everything published under the Infinite License can be used by other authors/publishers in their own products, but only if published under Infinite License, right? Even the mechanics of those products are not under ORC and can't be used by anyone publishing anything outside the Infinite License.

However, can someone create new content, with only ORC (rules/mechanic) content and IP owned/created by themselves (of course, making sure that this content isn't related to OGL or any other IP/copyright owned by others), and publish it in more than one place, for example, in one product under Infinite, and in another product under ORC?

Or, once this new content is published under Infinite, it can't be published under ORC (and vice versa)?

Example: Someone creates an ancestry, with IP/lore content owned only by themselves, and with PF2, ORC mechanics. As long as this content has nothing related or tied to OGL or Paizo-owned IP, can this be published both as an ORC product outside of Infinite/Drive Thru (under Pathfinder Compatibility License), and later as an Infinite product?

Yep, it definitely looks to me like the crux of confusion (quickly scribbles crux of confusion down somewhere to use as a spell name) revolves around the rights given by ORC and Infinite.

If you are making 3PP PF2R it is just a function of citing the Pathfinder Compatibility Licence, and the ORC, right? Kinda like in the old PF1 days where you used the PCL and the OGL?

Personally, I don’t see anything in Infinite that is desirable. I don’t want to publish anything that includes Golarion, and I definitely don’t want to make a PF2R product that isn’t available on the Paizo website. That Infinite is *only* available on “Pathfinder Infinite” and “Starfinder Infinite” which in turn are hosted by DriveThruRPG boggles my poor brain.

So while I commend Paizo for opening up their IP world for third-party publishers to play in, the way it has been made available is not at all attractive. I’ll be happy making 3PP PF2R stuff, using the ORC and having them available on Paizo, Drivethru and wherever else.

What I don’t understand is what it is about ORC that prevents a publisher from providing their ORC-conversant product on Infinite. What is it about the exclusivity of Infinite that prevents ORC products - is it that the ORC is “open gaming” and Infinite, by its very nature, is not?

I feel the need for a flow chart to show what can be used in what license, how and when they can mix or not, and how that applies to original content vs their party content and third-party content based on other third-party content.

Yep, it definitely looks to me like the crux of confusion (quickly scribbles crux of confusion down somewhere to use as a spell name) revolves around the rights given by ORC and Infinite.

If you are making 3PP PF2R it is just a function of citing the Pathfinder Compatibility Licence, and the ORC, right? Kinda like in the old PF1 days where you used the PCL and the OGL?

Personally, I don’t see anything in Infinite that is desirable. I don’t want to publish anything that includes Golarion, and I definitely don’t want to make a PF2R product that isn’t available on the Paizo website. That Infinite is *only* available on “Pathfinder Infinite” and “Starfinder Infinite” which in turn are hosted by DriveThruRPG boggles my poor brain.

So while I commend Paizo for opening up their IP world for third-party publishers to play in, the way it has been made available is not at all attractive. I’ll be happy making 3PP PF2R stuff, using the ORC and having them available on Paizo, Drivethru and wherever else.

What I don’t understand is what it is about ORC that prevents a publisher from providing their ORC-conversant product on Infinite. What is it about the exclusivity of Infinite that prevents ORC products - is it that the ORC is “open gaming” and Infinite, by its very nature, is not?

For the last question, it's easy: the ORC licence prevent you to "gate" your content in ANY way.

II. Grants & Limitations.

a. Primary Grant to You. Subject to the terms and conditions of this ORC License, for the Term
Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive,
irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to Use the Licensed
Material, in whole or in part that may be terminated only as set forth in Section V.a. for Your
breach. Licensor hereby authorizes You to exercise the Licensed Rights in all media and
formats whether now known or hereafter created, and to make technical modifications
necessary to do so. Licensor hereby waives and/or agrees not to assert any right or authority to
forbid You from making technical modifications necessary to exercise the Licensed Rights,
including technical modifications necessary to circumvent Effective Technological Measures.

"grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license"

But yeah, the main reason Infinite exist is for people that want to use Golarion and all other Paizo's property, that are not big enough to enter specific, custom deals with them.
If you only want to write mechanics, you're better to publish outside Infinite.
If you want to create your own setting, it was actually expressively prohibited already.
So yeah. The intent of the platform was always to focus on things you simply *can't* write to sell outside of that platform, by the sheer fact that it would be using Paizo property not shared freely through any "open" licence.

I feel like a chart that shows the differences would help a lot. A flowchart or one of those checkmark comparison charts.

Trying to wrap my head around this, are the following statements accurate?

-Infinite is more tied to OGL content and can still use OGL references
-Infinite is more lore influenced, and can refer to other works published under Infinite
-Infinite's license can't be modified to be more open due to agreements with other marketplaces (re: DTRPG).
-Even if it could, replacing Infinite with ORC would mean people wouldn't be able to use the OGL content.

-ORC has been removed from OGL influences, but as a result it can't use said OGL references.
-ORC is more mechanics and rules oriented. What lore it does use is no longer OGL derived.
-ORC can refer to anything else that is open and non-exclusive

-ORC's main incompatibility with Infinite is ORC requires/grants non-exclusivity, while Infinite requires exclusivity. You'd imagine that the exclusivity would take precedence if you tried to use both, but I'd take it there wouldn't be an advantage to doing so (which is why you can't).

Also I guess one question I also have, if you wish to use the world of Golarion specifically, to what degree would either license apply, if at all?

Mark, you are a wonderful human being and I want you to know that your efforts are not going unnoticed.

But I do have one more follow-up.

You can reference the horde lich, GameMastery Guide NPCs, and sahkils, for sure. You can even use more specific references to them via a micro stat block or give tactics advice for running them, referring to specific abilities (with a few exceptions, but mostly). You can reprint their stat blocks in their entirety with a few modifications, like removing alignment and any spell or feat that we didn't reprint in the Remaster or that uses another company's IP.

So, following up on this, I’m a bit concerned about the layering of what I was talking about before. For example, you just confirmed to me that I could say “NPC X is an advisor (Gamemastery Guide pg. 207)” in one of my conversions. Now, that opens a weird can of worms because the advisor has magic missile (an OGL spell) in their spell repertoire. So would I still be able to cite that statblock? Or would I have to only cite statblocks that are not only original to Paizo, but also ONLY contains stuff that’s ALSO only original to Paizo, and so on down the chain?

Also I guess one question I also have, if you wish to use the world of Golarion specifically, to what degree would either license apply, if at all?

Neither the old OGL or the new ORC let you use the world of Golarian since that is Paizo's protected IP.

The main advantage of the Infinite license is that it does allow you to use Golarian (with a few restrictions). If you want to publish fiction about the Pathfinder iconics, a Gravelands adventure, or a subsystem that integrates with the Strength of Thousands AP, you need to use Infinite. Alternatively if you don't want to make money off of it, you can put it up somewhere for free under the Community Use Policy.

For example, you just confirmed to me that I could say “NPC X is an advisor (Gamemastery Guide pg. 207)” in one of my conversions. Now, that opens a weird can of worms because the advisor has magic missile (an OGL spell) in their spell repertoire. So would I still be able to cite that statblock? Or would I have to only cite statblocks that are not only original to Paizo, but also ONLY contains stuff that’s ALSO only original to Paizo, and so on down the chain?

The OGL doesn't care if there's OGC content nested in your references if you're not actually citing or reprinting the OGC itself. So if there were a stat block for the archmage Nex, and he had 100 spells prepared somehow, because that's how badass he is, and every one of those spells were Open Game Content, you can still mention Nex, you can still refer to his stat block (by page number or as an abbreviated stat block as in an adventure). As long as your product doesn't actually include any of the OGC directly, all you're doing is pointing readers to another source, which would be an OGL product.

Think of them like Russian nesting dolls. As long as the outer doll doesn't have any OGC, any OGC within is irrelevant, since it's hidden from view, and not technically part of the outermost doll, which is the one you're actually releasing and thus need to license.

Thank you so much!

So I... do not understand at all.

I'm going to answer your questions here for posterity, but will also add at least some of these to the question pool for the stream. Thanks for asking them.

Could I publish fiction set in PF/SF settings on Infinite?

Totally! There is already a fair amount of fiction on the platform. This is already covered in the FAQ, by the way, so make sure to check that out for an even more thorough answer.

could I publish game material such as new enemies or new classes for PF/SF on Infinite? Because I already have done so, using the editions of the game current as of one year ago.

If I was to do the above in two weeks' time, would that material need to be in the new ORC-based mechanics system?

Yes, you can still publish game material. It is the bulk of what creators release on the marketplace. In, say, 2 weeks, you can release content for any version of the game, so long as you're properly attributing any content you didn't create yourself. If your product includes pre-remaster content that's accessible to you via the OGL, then you need to include the OGL in your product as well. If it's based entirely on the Remaster and doesn't, for example, include a feat named after a WotC-owned demon or something, then you're good to release it without a secondary license, and just use the Infinite license.

Just because a rule, like those in the new Remaster books, is available as Licensed Content under the ORC doesn't mean that's the only license that can apply to that content. Since Paizo owns the copyright on the material, we can license the same feat under the ORC, under the Infinite license, or under a custom license to someone like Demiplane for inclusion in the Pathfinder Nexus character toolset, a VTT partner, a foreign language localizer, or whatever. Regardless of how many other licenses apply to the content you're using, all that matters is which pipe that content flows to you through, as that defines how you need to attribute it in your own work.

could I create the above new enemies or new classes for a setting other than PF/SF, such as a homebrew, on Infinite? If so, would it need to be done under new system, or previous system? Or not permissible at all?

Pathfinder and Starfinder Infinite require that all content either be set in one of the official settings, or be setting-neutral. If you make a new setting, that needs to be released elsewhere. If your content is setting-neutral, it just needs to be compatible with any version of Pathfinder or Starfinder (P1, P2, SF1) to go up on Infinite, we don't care which.

same, but for adventures? If I create an adventure set in Golarion, using PF2 mechanics, can that be released on Infinite? What about post-ORC mechanics? What about an adventure using either PF2 or post-ORC PF2 mechanics but NOT set on Golarion?

Same question, same answer. Allowing people to create and sell adventures on Golarion is the primary purpose of Pathfinder Infinite. You're not only allowed to release such content, we actively encourage you to! It doesn't matter what mechanics you use in your adventure, so long as you're attributing anything you didn't create yourself correctly. For Remastered rules, that attribution is baked into the universal Infinite copyright statement. If you're using OGC, you'll need to release your book under the OGL, and must declare any non-OGC from the Remaster as Product Identity so that Paizo's copyrighted rules expressions aren't incidentally released into the OGL. My recommendation would be to make your adventure based on Remaster rules, and scrub any OGC that Paizo didn't create from it, so that it's also a fully Remastered product.

If your adventure is not set in Golarion, it probably doesn't belong on Infinite. The exception to this is that if it's a generic town of your own invention—let's call it Cybertron, a totally safe name that we'd never get sued for—and you don't define what non-Golarion world it's set in, then you're good. That's a modular setting-neutral location that someone could put into Golarion if they wanted to, or could put in their homebrew, or the Forgotten Realms or Eberron game they run using P2 rules.

spells. Some of the spells have changed under ORC. Does material CURRENTLY published on Infinite which reference spells need to be changed?

Nothing currently on Infinite needs to change. The OGL is permanent, so if you released something under the OGL before, it's good. If you release something under the OGL now, it's good, you just have to make sure you're not including something Paizo hasn't released as Open Game Content, like a spell that originated in a Remaster book, into the OGL in your work, which will have to also include the OGL.

I've been holding off on working on publishing more material on Infinite until ORC was established, set up and had this in place, so I have been watching for this post but I've really tried and I really just don't grasp any of this at all. Sorry!

No apology needed. This stuff is arcane and largely hidden from view for most players, GMs, and even publishers (though a publisher should understand what they're doing if using someone else's IP or license, but not everyone does). That's part of why we're trying to reduce the total number of licenses in play for Infinite creators. We want you to be able to focus on making cool content, not on whether you're violating Paizo's or WotC's or anyone else's copyrights.

If you were waiting for the ORC, then I assume you would have released your product under the ORC had such an option been available. If you were already intending to reference only Remaster books and rules in your own release (which you should have if it was going to be an ORC release), then you can safely release that exact same book under the Infinite license without needing to use the OGL or ORC.

I'm sure this was done for what seemed like solid legal reasons, but I see it as a serious mis-step.

The promise of the ORC License was the create a big, open landscape of gaming content where nobody would get sued because everything you might use is ORC somewhere. A mutual pact between every ORC publisher large and small that game mechanics lawsuits are off the table.

Forbidding Infinite products from also being ORC creates a rift in that open landscape. An ORC publisher could sue an Infinite publisher, or visa versa, because there's no such protection between the two.

Infinite lets you use Golarion.

ORC lets you use Pathfinder.

Right?

In essence, but we're talking about IP ownership and binding legal agreements, so details matter.

More accurately, Infinite allows you to use most content Paizo owns, including Golarion, as well as rules created by Paizo from whole cloth and not adapted from the 3.5 SRD or another OGL source, a variety of art assets released on Infinite or in the Community Use Package, and access to most of our non-logo trademarks and registered trademarks.

The ORC lets you use anything that's been released by its copyright holder as Licensed Material as defined in the ORC itself. So in the case of Paizo products, as of yesterday, that's all the rules in Player Core and GM Core. The ORC actually doesn't give you access to "Pathfinder" which is a registered trademark you can use via the Pathfinder Compatibility License.

An ORC publisher could sue an Infinite publisher, or visa versa, because there's no such protection between the two.

That was always the case. In this situation, any protections they have come from normal IP law. If I publish the pizzafolk ancestry on Infinite, I own that copyright. So if a hypothetical publisher we'll call Chad Razmir—that guy's a jerk—releases a book referencing the pizzafolk elsewhere (regardless of what license he releases it under, be it ORC or CC or no license at all), he's using my copyrighted material without a license. I can sue him for that.

If I release the pizzafolk ancestry via the ORC only, I still own the copyright, but other ORC publishers, including that jerk Chad Razmir, can use it and there's nothing I can do about it, even if Chad Razmir puts it in a book I don't like or adds a bunch of his own content to my pizzafolk I find objectionable (like pineapple). That's the protection provided by the ORC.

Similarly, if I release the pizzafolk ancestry on Infinite and Chad Razmir makes a deep-dish heritage for it that also offends me (because pizzafolk should be flat), and he releases that on Infinite, he's good and there's nothing I can do.

If we're looking at it in reverse, if I release the pizzafolk (I'm sorry, it's lunchtime) via the ORC on paizo.com or DTRPG or itch.io or wherever and then Chad tries to make an adventure using them on Infinite, he's likewise violating my copyright on that creation.

If you want people to be able to use your content on Infinite, release it on Infinite. If you want them to be able to use it beyond Infinite, release it via the ORC.

Shrink Laureate wrote:

An ORC publisher could sue an Infinite publisher, or visa versa, because there's no such protection between the two.

That was always the case. In this situation, any protections they have come from normal IP law. If I publish the pizzafolk ancestry on Infinite, I own that copyright. So if a hypothetical publisher we'll call Chad Razmir—that guy's a jerk—releases a book referencing the pizzafolk elsewhere (regardless of what license he releases it under, be it ORC or CC or no license at all), he's using my copyrighted material without a license. I can sue him for that.

If I release the pizzafolk ancestry via the ORC only, I still own the copyright, but other ORC publishers, including that jerk Chad Razmir, can use it and there's nothing I can do about it, even if Chad Razmir puts it in a book I don't like or adds a bunch of his own content to my pizzafolk I find objectionable (like pineapple). That's the protection provided by the ORC.

Similarly, if I release the pizzafolk ancestry on Infinite and Chad Razmir makes a deep-dish heritage for it that also offends me (because pizzafolk should be flat), and he releases that on Infinite, he's good and there's nothing I can do.

If we're looking at it in reverse, if I release the pizzafolk (I'm sorry, it's lunchtime) via the ORC on paizo.com or DTRPG or itch.io or wherever and then Chad tries to make an adventure using them on Infinite, he's likewise violating my copyright on that creation.

If you want people to be able to use your content on Infinite, release it on Infinite. If you want them to be able to use it beyond Infinite, release it via the ORC.

But the two can't mesh. If I want people to be able to use it on Infinite and beyond, that's not an option right?

If you are making 3PP PF2R it is just a function of citing the Pathfinder Compatibility Licence, and the ORC, right? Kinda like in the old PF1 days where you used the PCL and the OGL?

Correct. The ORC and PCL are still the way to go if you want to release something without using Paizo's Reserved Material or you want to be able to sell it somewhere other than the Infnite marketplace.

That Infinite is *only* available on “Pathfinder Infinite” and “Starfinder Infinite” which in turn are hosted by DriveThruRPG boggles my poor brain.

It's a marketplace owned and operated by DriveThru, just like Pathfinder Nexus is owned and operated by Demiplane. One of the terms of our license with DTRPG, which is the case for all their CCP agreements, is that content released there is exclusive to there. That's the trade-off we and end users agree to in order to be able to participate in the program. If you want to ensure your Pathfinder release is available on paizo.com, then the ORC and PCL are the way to go. You can get a product up on the Paizo Store by contacting Consignments.

What is it about the exclusivity of Infinite that prevents ORC products - is it that the ORC is “open gaming” and Infinite, by its very nature, is not?

Essentially. Though, Infinite is still "open gaming" just within a clearly defined landscape. Content on the marketplace is open to other Infinite creators, but not folks beyond the sandbox.

But the two can't mesh. If I want people to be able to use it on Infinite and beyond, that's not an option right?

Correct. Infinite has the same exclusivity clause that's present in all of DTRPG's community content programs.

thejeff wrote:

But the two can't mesh. If I want people to be able to use it on Infinite and beyond, that's not an option right?

Correct. Infinite has the same exclusivity clause that's present in all of DTRPG's community content programs.

While Mark has already answered this question, I really really hope this sinks in for people: This isn't new with the coming of ORC. This is how Infinite has worked.

I feel like a chart that shows the differences would help a lot. A flowchart or one of those checkmark comparison charts.

We're working on one! We've got some changes to our other policies (Community Use and Compatibility) that are going through legal/ownership review at the moment that I hope to have available to the public soon. When we release those, we'll also be putting up a central Licensing landing page that will briefly explain the various licenses Paizo uses and that the public can use to access our content. It will also include either a flow-chart or a table to help people see more visually what licenses work in what circumstances. I don't have an ETA on these updates or that landing page, but I'd guess it'll be before the end of the year.

Trying to wrap my head around this, are the following statements accurate?

-Infinite is more tied to OGL content and can still use OGL references

More connected to the OGL than what? It's more connected to the OGL than it is to the ORC, yes, by nature of already hosting hundreds of OGL products. There is nothing inherently linked between Infinite and the OGL other than the fact that our game, at the time Infinite launched, was an OGL game, so the license provides guidance and requirements for Infinite products that are also OGL. But it was always possible to make a non-rules release like fiction or art or maps or fonts or whatever and release them on Infinite without including the OGL in those products.

-Infinite is more lore influenced, and can refer to other works published under Infinite

Again, more lore influenced than what? But the second part is unequivocally true: the Infinite license grants publishers the right to use Paizo's lore and original lore content of other Infinite products.

-Infinite's license can't be modified to be more open due to agreements with other marketplaces (re: DTRPG).

I'm not at liberty to discuss the specifics of the contract between Paizo and DTRPG (now Roll20, actually, but that's neither here nor there), or between Paizo and any of our other partners.

-Even if it could, replacing Infinite with ORC would mean people wouldn't be able to use the OGL content.

The AxE addresses this, and that's really the authoritative source on what you can and can't do in relation to the ORC. The specific part we'd look at for this question is the following:

• Can I use OGL licensed content in my ORC Product?
  
• The OGL stipulates that “Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of the OGL License” (OGL Sec. 2). So we do not see any way that Wizards of the Coast’s Open Game Content you got a license to use under the OGL could be licensed out by you under the ORC unless they published an SRD type document with the ORC Notice in it. Despite that, if you published an OGL product, you could strip out any protectable expressions of game mechanics you received under an OGL license, and release that new product under the ORC.

This is essentially what we did with the Remaster. Since the core of Pathfinder Second Edition was our own creation, and not derivative of anything owned by another publisher, we could keep most of the game intact while simultaneously removing those elements that did come downstream to us from the 3.5 SRD or another OGL product.

-ORC has been removed from OGL influences, but as a result it can't use said OGL references.

ORC is a license. It never contained any OGL influences or references. Can you rephrase this one?

-ORC is more mechanics and rules oriented. What lore it does use is no longer OGL derived.

Again, ORC is a license. It doesn't contain any lore, just legal stuff.

-ORC can refer to anything else that is open and non-exclusive

If I understand you correctly—and I admit the last few statements have thrown me for a loop—yes, if you publish a book under the ORC, you can refer to anything that has been declared Licensed Material in an upstream ORC product.

-ORC's main incompatibility with Infinite is ORC requires/grants non-exclusivity, while Infinite requires exclusivity. You'd imagine that the exclusivity would take precedence if you tried to use both, but I'd take it there wouldn't be an advantage to doing so (which is why you can't).

Basically, yes. But I don't imagine anything when it comes to conflicting licenses. This has never been tested in court because the ORC is new. By not allowing the ORC on Infinite, we're hopefully not going to find out anytime soon if your assumption is correct, and if we do, Paizo, Roll20, and the publishers releasing content on Infinite won't be involved in the associated lawsuit.

Also I guess one question I also have, if you wish to use the world of Golarion specifically, to what degree would either license apply, if at all?

The world of Golarion and associated non-rules are not Licensed Material under the ORC, so you'd have to use the Infinite license.

Ok, folks. I've spent the better part of the last 3 days going through questions and comments with what I'm sure were entirely too verbose responses and clarifications. I have other work I need to do, but I will keep watching this thread, Reddit, and discord for other questions for Tuesday's stream. I will make a point to continue addressing people's questions after that time if they're made here, so if you're seeing this in the futurefuturefuture and have a question, don't hesitate to ask.

Thanks to everyone for a civil conversation about this topic, and for caring enough about Pathfinder and Pathfinder Infinite to even engage in the discourse.

You're all awesome, and I hope to see you on Twitch on Tuesday.

I would appreciate it if you do not imply that the work people done is not ... well work. ... If you feel that presenting new rules, new character options, new adventures, new NPCs, and the whole host of options on Pathfinder Infinite or Pathfinder Compatible Products could be considered micro-monetization... then I'm not sure this is the thread for you anyway.

I did not imply it wasn't. But I did greatly question whether it's something that should be sold. I remember RPGs before the great "everything must be monetized!" and, frankly, it was better. These $1 things here and $5 things there should be $0 blog posts with a tip jar.

And, as for you telling me to go away: it's of great concern. Since Pathfinder Infinite came along and started locking things up, there are people putting their things only there, even if they needn't or shouldn't be (because they're not using Golarion lore/characters/etc). The topic of this blog post is only going to make it worse.

Just like Paizo set the example of "subscription model" stuff during the era of PF1 (which left many products in stupidly weird states with innumerable sub-editions, or only a couple chapters released and not finished, or with no meshing between chapters), Paizo's setting examples here to make things locked up and tied to closed, and encouraging use of Paizo lore/art/etc to keep it that way.

But I did greatly question whether it's something that should be sold. I remember RPGs before the great "everything must be monetized!" and, frankly, it was better. These $1 things here and $5 things there should be $0 blog posts with a tip jar.

It is wonderful that you have the personal resources to create new material for RPGs and not need to be compensated for your time and efforts.

Other people don't have that financial stability, and trying to impose your value system (should) on their behavior is making it clear that you don't understand their situation.

The topic of this blog post is only going to make it worse.

What is going to get worse? The ability for creative people to get paid for their efforts? Or your ability to use their work without paying anything?

Paizo's setting examples here to make things locked up and tied to closed, and encouraging use of Paizo lore/art/etc to keep it that way.

Or, alternatively, Paizo is helping creative artists, writers, and game designers support themselves by doing things they love.

Your desire for people to provide free labor so you can enjoy your hobby is obvious. If you don't want to pay for that work, you are free to not purchase it.

But some of the rest of us appreciate the ability to recompense that creativity in some small way.

I remember RPGs before the great "everything must be monetized!" and, frankly, it was better. These $1 things here and $5 things there should be $0 blog posts with a tip jar.

I can remember TTRPGs before the OLG. I don't remember anything being free back then, as the saying goes TSR "They Sue Regularly." And blogs hadn't been invented yet.

I remember RPGs before the great "everything must be monetized!"

Before the Dawn of civilization?

And subs existed long before Paizo.

@Mark Moreland: stellar work, above and beyond my wildest imaginings. Well, not wildest, but you get the picture. Thank you so much for taking the time to parse and answer not only my but others’ questions.

@Re ORC vs. Infinite and the Death of Open Gaming: it…really isn’t.

Infinite is a license, that *opens* Golarion to you. Without it, you can’t publish 3rd party content set in Paizo’s worlds. I have no problem with them doing what they wish with their IP.

ORC allows everyone to play in an open playground, where folx are free to borrow, blend and expand upon a growing corpus of ORC works. I thank them for that.

Paizo protects its IP with Infinite, but undertook the hard work to create the ORC to keep open gaming alive.

Emky wrote:

I remember RPGs before the great "everything must be monetized!"

Before the Dawn of civilization?

And subs existed long before Paizo.

Back when some of us as kids had $ for 1st edition D&D because we delivered newspaper subs after school on our bikes. Kind of sad to just realize I had more freedom and respect at work when I was delivering papers at 10 years old than I do today in my underpaying corporate hell job. No wonder I spend all my free time trying to monetize my hobbies to free myself or just have enough $ to have a hobby.

The thing I like about Infinite and ORC licenses is they make publishing legally simple enough so people who can't afford lawyers can still publish using them. I like that Paizo has kept Infinite and ORC separate mixing them adds a lot more potential for legal risk. And to minimize risk even further I have no intention of ever mixing other third-party content under any license into what I write.

Mark Moreland wrote:

thejeff wrote:

But the two can't mesh. If I want people to be able to use it on Infinite and beyond, that's not an option right?

Correct. Infinite has the same exclusivity clause that's present in all of DTRPG's community content programs.

While Mark has already answered this question, I really really hope this sinks in for people: This isn't new with the coming of ORC. This is how Infinite has worked.

Sort of. I think the distinction is that people expected Infinite to work with ORC the same way it works with the OGL, so that it doesn't catches them off guard.

Pretty sure I'm right about that: You could combine OGL and Infinite material. For example, create a new monster, release it under the OGL and use it in an Infinite adventure set in Golarion. (Or use a 3rd party's OGL monster.)

But you can't do that with ORC content.

VestOfHolding wrote:

[Snipped out to prevent tunelling]

Sort of. I think the distinction is that people expected Infinite to work with ORC the same way it works with the OGL, so that it doesn't catches them off guard.

Pretty sure I'm right about that: You could combine OGL and Infinite material. For example, create a new monster, release it under the OGL and use it in an Infinite adventure set in Golarion. (Or use a 3rd party's OGL monster.)

But you can't do that with ORC content.

From what I heard between the branches, that's probably also what Paizo initially hoped to do... but it didn't pan out.

I have a hypothetical.

I create a book with remaster rules and Golarion lore. Before publishing the book on Infinite, I strip out the rules, and put them on my website under ORC.

It looks as though I can do this. I have the right to put the rules on my website under the ORC. No problem. I have the right to put the rules on Infinite, because that's covered by the Infinite license. (All the rights involved are mine or Paizo's.) The Infinite product is derivative of the website product, which was published first, and the agreement does not prohibit that — it only prohibits publishing derivatives of your Infinite product. (You warrant that no-one else's rights are involved, but that is true. You do not, as far as I can see, have to warrant that no part of the Work has been previously published.)

So, I think this is a mechanism to allow people to ORC their rules, and still publish on Infinite, as long as they have substantial Golarion content as well. It will not allow you to use non-Infinite ORC material (finite ORCs?) on Infinite, but it will at least allow rules to flow out of Infinite.

Do Paizo and Roll20 agree?

Question for you, Mark (assuming you’re still looking at this thread):

Long story short, for a Wrath of the Righteous conversion I want to use the mythic stuff coming out in War of Immortals, but WotR has so many OGL-isms that it’d be an absolute minefield to edit out.

Assuming War of Immortals is under the ORC, that means that I couldn’t refer to the mythic rules in there while also putting my conversion under the OGL, yes? Because that’d be mixing the licenses?

And would I be able to still stat out any unique NPCs that are, say, a drow, but just not use the word “drow” anywhere? Or would that be too close to “cavern elf who worships a demon lord is obviously a drow”?

I assume that is the case and I’d need to edit out any OGL-isms, which is a massive overhaul. I ask because there’s a surprising amount of mariliths, balors, etc. in WotR and i was just wondering my options.

Assuming War of Immortals is under the ORC, that means that I couldn’t refer to the mythic rules in there while also putting my conversion under the OGL, yes? Because that’d be mixing the licenses?

Correct. War of Immortals will be released under the ORC, but you won't be able to refer to both OGC monsters like vrocks or alu-demons in the same product as new mechanics that aren't already OGC (the War of Immortals mythic stuff).

And would I be able to still stat out any unique NPCs that are, say, a drow, but just not use the word “drow” anywhere? Or would that be too close to “cavern elf who worships a demon lord is obviously a drow”?

Yeah, you could make a P2 stat block for Areelu Vorlesh, an alu-demon, that didn't use that OGC term and just used Remastered rules. Since P2 NPCs and monsters are all custom stat blocks and not "built like PCs" as they were in P1, you are already making a mostly original work by statting them up anyway. You just need to make sure you're not using any spells or feats or other terms that Paizo can't license to you without the OGL.

For something as OGL-laden as Wrath, I would recommend waiting until after Monster Core comes out, so you can get a clearer idea of where Paizo drew the line between mythology/original creation and OGC-derived work. It will also provide you some alternative demons to use in place of the ones we didn't reprint.

For something as OGL-laden as Wrath, I would recommend waiting until after Monster Core comes out, so you can get a clearer idea of where Paizo drew the line between mythology/original creation and OGC-derived work. It will also provide you some alternative demons to use in place of the ones we didn't reprint.

To be fair, I’d have to wait for War of Immortals anyway, and as far as I can tell the release date for that book hasn’t even been announced yet. Generally speaking I just google a monster’s name, and if it’s not obviously from mythology (like a succubus) and I see the Forgotten Realms wiki or some other 5e thing come up, I pretty much don’t use it, because that’s a legal line I don’t want to even try to balance. But yeah, for stuff like a new pride demon and whatnot, I’d have to wait until Monster Core.

Yeah, you could make a P2 stat block for Areelu Vorlesh, an alu-demon, that didn't use that OGC term and just used Remastered rules. Since P2 NPCs and monsters are all custom stat blocks and not "built like PCs" as they were in P1, you are already making a mostly original work by statting them up anyway. You just need to make sure you're not using any spells or feats or other terms that Paizo can't license to you without the OGL.

Areelu was probably a bad example, since she was always referred to as a half-succubus rather than an alu-demon. I was more referring to Mistress Anemora, a drider cleric of Deskari. Or Svendack, a drow cleric of Baphomet. I know, for example, that the FAQ said "matriarchal demon-worshiping subterranean dark-skinned elves are likely Open Game Content even if you call them something other than 'drow.'" And I would, at the bare-bones, present Svendack as an elf with darkvision who's (obviously) a worshiper of a demon lord, so that is skirting a VERY specific line. I wouldn't outright use the word "drow" or "drider," but still.

Mark Moreland wrote:

For something as OGL-laden as Wrath, I would recommend waiting until after Monster Core comes out, so you can get a clearer idea of where Paizo drew the line between mythology/original creation and OGC-derived work. It will also provide you some alternative demons to use in place of the ones we didn't reprint.

To be fair, I’d have to wait for War of Immortals anyway, and as far as I can tell the release date for that book hasn’t even been announced yet.

IIRC War of Immortals should arrive on the last quarter of 2024. So, in approximately 1 year.

Thanks to everyone who came by today's Twitch stream. I hope it helped clarify things. We'll have the VOD up soon, and will upload the whole thing to YouTube after the long holiday weekend.

A couple more questions for you Mark (because I’m extremely neurotic). I’m so sorry, you’re probably sick of hearing from me so often.

The Compatibility License only grants you access to limited Paizo trademarks, like the Compatibility logo and such. So you still need to fall back on another license to access the content itself. If you’re not using our setting, then that license can be the OGL or the ORC, but if you’re using any of our named NPCs, for example, then the license you’re falling back on is the Infinite License. In this case you’d still need to use the OGL to reference the Horde Lich, or the generic NPCs from Gamemastery Guide, and couldn’t reference any named NPCs at all without Infinite.”

1) You said this on stream and I’m hoping for some clarification on the bolded section. What is “this case” that you’re referring to? Context clues are a bit jumbled as to whether you’re referring to “publishing under the Infinite License” or “publishing under the Compatibility License.”

2) A hypothetical came up when I noticed that the SRD has nightshades in it. Paizo repurposed nightshades under the name “darvakka” and gave each one their own unique name (“nightwing” to “vanyver,” etc.). Are those still usable as long as I don’t refer to the names “nightshade” or “nightwing”?

3) By the same token as 2), could I still, say, link to AoN with a “pride demon.” Is that kosher due to the fact that I’m not explicitly saying “marilith”? Even though the thing I’d be linking to would then use “marilith”? I figured that that’s another Russian nesting doll thing (where only the outermost layer matters), but I figured I’d ask. I do recall the adventure card game not being under the OGL and still having images for a glabrezu while referring to it as a “treachery demon.”

4) to follow up on 3), assuming I never used the word "marilith," could I still stat out, say, Ylleshka, the siamese twin marilith? It would be of my own creation, but it would be toeing a line due to it being a "six-armed demon wielding longswords" and that's really close to being clearly a creature derivative from the OGL. It's basically a question of how close I can get to the line without crossing into the "I definitely have to use the OGL" situation.

5) Stuff from the Tome of Horrors is just an absolute “do not touch this whatsoever” with the Infinite License, yes? And how would that work with, say, Baphomet. I’ve seen a lot of “Baphomet from Tome of Horrors” stuff here and there, but I notably DIDN’T see it in Gods & Magic, which is where Paizo “statted out” Baphomet as a deity to be worshiped.

I mean, I asked about dire corby earlier which is tome of horrors. It can be in infinite, but you'd also need to refer to ogl as well. Unless i misunderstood or misremembered the answer

1) You said this on stream and I’m hoping for some clarification on the bolded section. What is “this case” that you’re referring to? Context clues are a bit jumbled as to whether you’re referring to “publishing under the Infinite License” or “publishing under the Compatibility License.”

"In this case," means if you were publishing under the Compatibility License and not Infinite, because in that situation you'd need the OGL to grant you permission to use those rules. If you're publishing on Infinite, the Infinite license already does that.

2) A hypothetical came up when I noticed that the SRD has nightshades in it. Paizo repurposed nightshades under the name “darvakka” and gave each one their own unique name (“nightwing” to “vanyver,” etc.). Are those still usable as long as I don’t refer to the names “nightshade” or “nightwing”?

It's certainly safer to use Paizo's invented names for those monster concepts, but this is a gray area. I would wager we simply won't use them going forward, just to be safe, but that doesn't mean you can't. If you're just referring to the stat block and pointing people to an existing page reference, then you can totally use the new names we gave them, as those words never appeared in an upstream source from us. If you're describing the concepts extensively, you might need to cite the OGL.

3) By the same token as 2), could I still, say, link to AoN with a “pride demon.” Is that kosher due to the fact that I’m not explicitly saying “marilith”? Even though the thing I’d be linking to would then use “marilith”? I figured that that’s another Russian nesting doll thing (where only the outermost layer matters), but I figured I’d ask. I do recall the adventure card game not being under the OGL and still having images for a glabrezu while referring to it as a “treachery demon.”

Yeah, this is probably okay (with the caveat that it's not up to me if this is okay or not. The marilith is owned by Wizards, so they'd be the ones to potentially call you out for using their IP without a license. I think it's a tenuous claim at that point, but I can't speak as an authority on what they'd do. The marilith and glabrezu are not in Monster Core, even under new names, so take that for what you will.

4) to follow up on 3), assuming I never used the word "marilith," could I still stat out, say, Ylleshka, the siamese twin marilith? It would be of my own creation, but it would be toeing a line due to it being a "six-armed demon wielding longswords" and that's really close to being clearly a creature derivative from the OGL. It's basically a question of how close I can get to the line without crossing into the "I definitely have to use the OGL" situation.

Yeah, it's certainly toeing the line, but it's up to you as the publisher of the work in question if you feel it's crossing it. Ylleshka is our IP, but a lot of elements of her character are derivative of material from the 3.5 SRD.

5) Stuff from the Tome of Horrors is just an absolute “do not touch this whatsoever” with the Infinite License, yes? And how would that work with, say, Baphomet. I’ve seen a lot of “Baphomet from Tome of Horrors” stuff here and there, but I notably DIDN’T see it in Gods & Magic, which is where Paizo “statted out” Baphomet as a deity to be worshiped.

Baphomet is a weird corner case, where he was statted up in ToH, but not presented as a god you could worship, and certainly not in a rules expression resembling the way we do it in P2. I'm not as involved in the discussion of how we're handling him or Kostchtchie or other demon lords and demigods in a similar situation going forward, so I can't give more insight into that. Again, you as publisher have to make the call you're comfortable with.

Not exactly satisfying answers to some of those, but that's probably on purpose. And thus wise. These minutiae are likely something I'd have to bring up with a lawyer.

I have a hypothetical.

I create a book with remaster rules and Golarion lore. Before publishing the book on Infinite, I strip out the rules, and put them on my website under ORC.

It looks as though I can do this. I have the right to put the rules on my website under the ORC. No problem. I have the right to put the rules on Infinite, because that's covered by the Infinite license. (All the rights involved are mine or Paizo's.) The Infinite product is derivative of the website product, which was published first, and the agreement does not prohibit that — it only prohibits publishing derivatives of your Infinite product. (You warrant that no-one else's rights are involved, but that is true. You do not, as far as I can see, have to warrant that no part of the Work has been previously published.)

So, I think this is a mechanism to allow people to ORC their rules, and still publish on Infinite, as long as they have substantial Golarion content as well. It will not allow you to use non-Infinite ORC material (finite ORCs?) on Infinite, but it will at least allow rules to flow out of Infinite.

Do Paizo and Roll20 agree?

Note: You can publish YOUR original work under as many licenses as you wish, the license only applies to that version. EN Publishing's Advanced 5eSRD is published under the OGL, CC-BY, & the OGL.

And as stated up the thread you can reference non-Infinite sources, ala "see xxx reference, sec y" in your Infinite product. Do you could reference your ORC base that you have on DTRPG, or your website.

I'm coming into this discussion late, and I may well have missed this answer somewhere listed above, but I have a question about a specific licensing scenario.
Paizo presumably owns their interpretations of mythological creatures, like the kelpie, and so the kelpie as presented in Bestiary 3 is Paizo owned material—but Bestiary 3 is published under the OGL. If I wanted to reference pieces of the kelpie statblock for my own version of a centaur ancestry, would I be forced to publish that content under the OGL, or would the Community Use or Infinite License be required? Does that content fall under the designation of Open Content or Paizo owned content, I guess is my question.
Similarly, azarketi are an ancestry invented by Paizo and have yet to be republished in any ORC licensed book; I assume any reference to them or any related ancestry feats or features would be Community Use or Infinite and couldn't exist under ORC.

I also am coming late and have a specific question: I've written out a play through of a 1e adventure path and I would like to put it on Pathfinder Infinite and I don't know if that's allowed. I saw that fiction is allowed, but is a full novel of a published adventure path okay? And if it isn't appropriate there, is there any way to share this thing I've made? I also wonder what the difference between say, written work, and one of the many actual play podcasts running around is.