New and Revised Licenses

Just to be clear--as someone who's not an expert on this stuff and hasn't been following along--what about the new license would prevent Foundry if not for Foundry's partner status? Is it the fact that it's not sold on Pathfinder Infinite? What does that mean, practically speaking? Could a version of "the next Foundry" simply be released via Infinite, or is that not tenable?

Obviously, "the next Foundry" wouldn't be allowed to host both OGL and Golarion content at the same time--no aboleths fighting priests of Desna--but would it go further than that?

Sorry if these are dumb questions! I'm not a lawyer, and I want to be sure I understand what we're really talking about.

Just to be clear on this point, while I do agree with Roadie's statement that distribution of any software on Infinite being untenable (and seemingly against the ToS, or at least intent, of the website), the key problem being discussed is the lack of legal access to the setting for a future Foundry-like product. At least from my perspective, partially the concern here comes from the ambiguity that removing the setting always introduces - when all the proper nouns are removed, it's often difficult to communicate important mechanical information, especially about mechanical options like deities which are inextricably linked with the setting. But an additional concern is that a good deal of Foundry's success came specifically from the integration with Golarion - I know the thing that got me most intrigued with Foundry to start with was the way I could use the PDF2Foundry module to turn my AP pdf files into a pre-made module. It was a huge time saver, and was the big push to change from roll20. Nowadays, it's buying the pre-made modules for the APs, which only can work with a commercial license - but I suspect I'm not the only one who would have been less likely to get into Foundry in the first place if it wasn't able to use Golarion setting material. One that would definitely make it harder (and might be the case now, I think it's unclear) is that modules wouldn't be able to use Golarion setting material either - you can see on Infinite that products sell much better if they have Foundry integration, and that becomes more complicated to do if you need to strip the setting material from your product when you make the Foundry module. I think it would be fine with the Infinite license, but there might even be an argument to be made that you would be distributing non pdf/image files that aren't just providing access to your content for another program (because it's different content), which would be violating those terms. I suspect it's fine, but it all gets complicated when you start switching between two or three different licenses.

This was a long read, but yeah, I cannot say I approve of this direction. At the very least, such a change should have been telegraphed well in advance. If it was to go into effect next year, I'd understand. While I'm aware Paizo likes to hold back internal strategies until the last minute to keep sales high, this simply does not feel like it applies in this situation where the livelihoods of 3pps are on the line.

At least give these folks some time to finish their product, and give others the opportunity to poke holes in the system so that problems can be addressed before they become, well, problems. If you are only now hearing issues that you are considering getting cleared up and clarified, that means you already pulled the trigger too soon.

When the OGL drama happened 20 months ago, I made a big switch. My group and I left behind a campaign we’d spent years on, packed up our 5e books, canceled our DnDBeyond subscriptions, and started playing Pathfinder 2E. We did this because Paizo’s open approach was a breath of fresh air compared to the restrictive changes Wizards of the Coast was pushing. We wanted to support a company that seemed to truly care about its players and were willing to learn a more complicated system to do it.

Now, it feels like déjà vu. Paizo’s recent changes to the CUP are starting to look a lot like what we saw with WoTC. The reasons might be different, but the result is the same: more control and less openness. It’s disappointing to see history repeating itself with these corporate moves.

The impact is clear. Besides a few tools like Pathbuilder, AoN, and Foundry, we’re not going to see any new player tools. Until you read the FCP you don't realize how much like the OGL revision it really is.

Section 2 specifically kills ALL digital tools that make even a passing reference to a proper name. As pointed out during the WoTC debacle its not clear this is even legally enforceable, but they have the lawyers and we won't. (The only way around this is to systematically delete every reference to anything even remotely lore based. After this rug-pull, I cannot rely on them being fair about it either.)

Paizo could have addressed the OGL issue while keeping kept CUP permissive - but instead, they’re going in a more limiting direction to drive content to Pathfinder Infinite that that profit from. That is today, who knows how much more restrictive it will become in a year when they "need to protect themselves again".

They point out content on it can be free, true, but they are banking on it having a cost. That is why the "easily distributable pdf" is called out - they want a cut of the action. This isn’t the first time we’ve faced this kind of issue in two years. WoTC made its OGL moves specifically to monetize their 3rd party developers. How is this different?

Paizo is relying on the loyalty of current players, and that might work for now. But new players who hear about these changes and see Paizo acting like WoTC will be turned away. How do we convince others to try Pathfinder 2e when its just another shade of the same thing?

The more Paizo starts to look like the company we moved away from, they end up missing out on attracting new fans to the game. I am desperately hoping they backtrack like WoTC did. What good is it to keep Golarion (and other IP) safe from thieves when no one is there to fight them?

I started with Pathfinder in the aftermath of the 4e debacle, and the pathfinder to PF2e to Foundry and Deidril's importer are a large reason why I finally switched from PF1e to PF2e in spite of being an old grognard. I really like the PF2e system now, especially it's integration with Foundry, but I hope that these fan projects are not quashed in the wake of new licensing.

I have spent way too much money with Paizo over the last couple of years. Before August of 2022, I was largely buying from third party vendors like Amazon, which are a little harder to track, but I decided at that point to start ordering directly from the source. Since then, I have spent $5,446.34 for books, pdfs, and foundry releases directly from Paizo. That's not including my nearly complete PF1e rulebook collection, the ongoing subscriptions, or the money my players have spent since we switched over to PF2e or the ancillary things they have picked up because of it. I think I have every premium Foundry module released. I say this to say that I am what most would call a super fan. I'm an advocate for Pathfinder 2e out in the wild, and have brought several people into the Pathfinder orbit outside of my player base.

Paizo has built up a lot of goodwill from me over the years. They've consistently been a positive force in the RPG movement. I'm going to withhold judgement on this change for now. I do think it is an unfortunate time to drop this kind of news, when most of the office is getting ready for Gen Con, and responses may be delayed. Once further clarification has been offered I will decide my ultimate response. I know I am not alone in watching this, and the responses to it, very carefully.

I dread to think how much I've spent with Paizo over the last decade+. It's more easily measured in metres. Part of the reason for that was the generosity of the CUP and the active creative community built on it.

Under these new licenses, my own project is probably not possible. Unless something changes I fear this may be the end of Dyslexic Character Sheets. And I wouldn't blame other creators who feel the same.

Shutting the door on third-party creations will gradually drain the life out Pathfinder. Some great projects will disappear; others won't be made in the first place. This is a fatal mistake.

I understand that fixing this mistake will take time, they have to get it right, send it past the lawyers for multiple passes etc. I also understand they're a little busy right now. So I don't need to see legally-binding details.

What I need to see right now, what we all need, is an acknowledgement that they realise it's a mistake and intend to find a way to fix it.

On the note of PDF importers for foundry or other future projects, my understanding is that these are nothing more than highly specialized PDF readers and as a result do not need to rely on licensing/agreements/policies. It would be very hard for Paizo to ever restrict the PDF importers without also restricting everyone's ability to read one of their PDFs for "normal" use. And they'd be fools to try it since the PDF importers are undoubtedly selling lots of PDFs.

On the note of PDF importers for foundry or other future projects, my understanding is that these are nothing more than highly specialized PDF readers and as a result do not need to rely on licensing/agreements/policies. It would be very hard for Paizo to ever restrict the PDF importers without also restricting everyone's ability to read one of their PDFs for "normal" use. And they'd be fools to try it since the PDF importers are undoubtedly selling lots of PDFs.

They are 100% paying for themselves with me for sure. I know I started subscribing specifically to use those and I've bought a lot of PDFs because of them. I love the premium modules but those certainly made the transition smoother.

I’m still really struggling to understand the reasoning behind the jarring differences in the licences and policies. Why the ban on RPG terms in….rpg products? Why the ban on using proprietary imagery by fans when the proprietary imagery is what the fans love?

As to the effects on fan-run and utilised builders, wikis etc, it seems passing strange that there are a few that have special permissions, while others are left out in the cold to navigate what seems like Cheliax-level infernal contractery.

All of which seems to point to a massive derailing of the fan-support of the game, the setting and the actual community of both internal and external stakeholders of Paizo - staff, players, fans, organisers. As doesn’t need to be pointed out to anyone in corporate with half a brain, without consumers, your brand dies the ignoble death of being ignored. And the value of fan-created databases, infospots and all the accumulated goodwill cannot be quantified in strict monetary terms but it is inexorably linked to the value of the game/products in the consumer’s mind. Want to buy into a new game system? Maybe. What if I told you it had awesome support, an engaged and engaging community with a healthy respect for the company and awesome free tools to make creating characters, adventures and other resources? Yes please!!! Free community support is not to be trifled with in the scramble for greater “control” or “protection”. There are other, kinder ways. Even in the harsh world of business, because ultimately businesses are inextricably linked with their communities.

And having just watched a certain large player base battle royale video game just try to squeeze its player base by proposing “switching up the monetaries” and said player base completely blasted them causing said game’s company to reverse the proposed changes perhaps it might be good to make a lot more noise, find out exactly what the real reasoning is and ask Paizo to remember who pays their bills.

It isn’t me. I bought exactly two Adventure paths (one I subscribed to [Iron Gods] and the other I bought at fire sale price of $2 a volume [Second Darkness]) and a handful of rulebooks - so these are my only direct financial contributions. Every other rulebook I bought at my NVLNFGS (not very local, not favorite game store). But for those of you who are subscribers and who do care about the community, then TOZ’s cancellation example is definitely an option. Pretty sure it got results at least one time before…

Yes, it matters a lot that they are shoving people into the walled garden of Infinite. Paizo gets a cut of it. An unearned, unnecessary, undue cut. Plenty of us saw this coming from miles away when they announced Infinite originally.

I miss the "founders in charge" era... Paizo used to be such a wonderful company by and for gamers that cared about community, actually cared about open gaming, and operated at a human scale. Heck, now there's not even a "who works here" page anymore!

AND this whole thread and debacle are filled with misconceptions. Like the "sell your creations" thing in the original post: you always could. They were your own creations. And Paizo couldn't prohibit them before. But now they "graciously" allow you to do something you always could. (And you couldn't before, and still can't, directly use their own images, etc.) To deny fan art, wow... That's Margaret Weis levels of delusion to think that fanworks must be licensed. (I pick her name explicitly because she's the grandmother of the whole false idea that you need a license to make a compatible product or say, "This works with that.")

Okay, as one of the other negative voices on this thread I have to say that this is too far. Infinite is great, and the fact that Paizo gets a cut is perfectly fine. If you're using their IP and making money off of it, giving them their "royalties" in place of appropriate licensing which would arrange for such makes perfect sense.

Which is super weird because the FCP gives away that profit stream for merchandizing that isn't an RPG product. Not sure why their idea was to choke out RPG products for more money but completely ignore profits from merchandisers now.

I do think that you're right on the fanworks - and even if we build RPG content, and give it for free using their IP, I'd be surprised if they could even give us a nintendo-style C&D or do anything litigious to us, because fanfiction has been legally defensible for a long time, and all we're doing is creating playable fanfics. But that's exactly what the FCP is setting up for - the ability to litigate against all of the fans. This isn't about protecting them from Hasbro and OGL, its about giving them more ability to sue the fans who don't act the way they want us to.

There's as lot of folks in the PF2 world that don't see this as a huge deal because it doesn't really impact them - after all, why not just move to PF2 and get all your rights back? But eventually it will come for them too. This is just the first step in rolling back the community goodwill.

As far as the era of the founders? I wasn't here for that and I'm glad I wasn't. The Paizo of that era developed a metric ton of bigoted, prejudiced content and pushed out shovelware to make sales every month to their audience of reactionaries. I understand why they did it, but I do not understand anyone who found charm in early PF1 era.

But that doesn't mean I want you to not be able to work on products derived from it. Its not my cup of tea, but its still a cup of tea that many people love to make variants from harvesting the tea leaves and making new mixtures. And that shouldn't be illegal.

On the note of PDF importers for foundry or other future projects, my understanding is that these are nothing more than highly specialized PDF readers and as a result do not need to rely on licensing/agreements/policies. It would be very hard for Paizo to ever restrict the PDF importers without also restricting everyone's ability to read one of their PDFs for "normal" use. And they'd be fools to try it since the PDF importers are undoubtedly selling lots of PDFs.

This might be a conversation for another thread but my understanding was that they had a PDF reader component to find your watermark for verification, but they were very much a repository of data on the adventures that were locked beyond that watermark verification. That they either hold the data for all the journals and maps directly, or that they hold all the data that is able to scrape from all the information with particular parsing, which would need to include major RPG terms for recognition and digestion into NPC blocks and skill check automation and such.

With the fact that Dedril's adds in AI Art for the modules he imports, its very clear that it at least has programming that knows what actors are in which modules, which could constitute enough information to be acted against by paizo here. The lengthy delay in supporting new scenarios makes me believe its all manual journal creation unlocked by the PDF watermark read, though.

redeux wrote:

On the note of PDF importers for foundry or other future projects, my understanding is that these are nothing more than highly specialized PDF readers and as a result do not need to rely on licensing/agreements/policies. It would be very hard for Paizo to ever restrict the PDF importers without also restricting everyone's ability to read one of their PDFs for "normal" use. And they'd be fools to try it since the PDF importers are undoubtedly selling lots of PDFs.

This might be a conversation for another thread but my understanding was that they had a PDF reader component to find your watermark for verification, but they were very much a repository of data on the adventures that were locked beyond that watermark verification. That they either hold the data for all the journals and maps directly, or that they hold all the data that is able to scrape from all the information with particular parsing, which would need to include major RPG terms for recognition and digestion into NPC blocks and skill check automation and such.

With the fact that Dedril's adds in AI Art for the modules he imports, its very clear that it at least has programming that knows what actors are in which modules, which could constitute enough information to be acted against by paizo here. The lengthy delay in supporting new scenarios makes me believe its all manual journal creation unlocked by the PDF watermark read, though.

You're not wrong that it is a lot of manual work, but the modules themselves don't store any paizo IP or data that needs to be under a license/agreement/policy. the modules work by reading the PDF and then having been manually coded to know what to do with each piece of data. The importers are taught to take the map from page 2 and make it a scene, then take the block of text from the next page and format it as a journal. And so on. You mention actors, it could be possible to regex the text and know that a block of text announcing "Creatures" on page 5 will have the a creature with the a specific UUID which is linked instead of that text. This is then resolved as a dynamic link within foundry to render the paizo IP as licensed by the pf2e system. And when that actor is imported, the art can be matched with art from the PDF or the AI art the module includes, all without paizo IP stored in the module. Since they dont rely on the CUP or Fan Content Policy they could leverage OGL or ORC to include actor names in their regex lookups for anything that was covered by it, but you still could do this without a list of paizo IP by regex'ing patterns in the text other than the paizo IP. So there's nothing in the actual module data that needs to be Paizo IP. To prevent a pdf importer from operating then regular pdf readers wouldn't be able to read a PDF because they are both reading the PDF in their own way.

emky wrote:

Yes, it matters a lot that they are shoving people into the walled garden of Infinite. Paizo gets a cut of it. An unearned, unnecessary, undue cut. Plenty of us saw this coming from miles away when they announced Infinite originally.

I miss the "founders in charge" era... Paizo used to be such a wonderful company by and for gamers that cared about community, actually cared about open gaming, and operated at a human scale. Heck, now there's not even a "who works here" page anymore!

AND this whole thread and debacle are filled with misconceptions. Like the "sell your creations" thing in the original post: you always could. They were your own creations. And Paizo couldn't prohibit them before. But now they "graciously" allow you to do something you always could. (And you couldn't before, and still can't, directly use their own images, etc.) To deny fan art, wow... That's Margaret Weis levels of delusion to think that fanworks must be licensed. (I pick her name explicitly because she's the grandmother of the whole false idea that you need a license to make a compatible product or say, "This works with that.")

Okay, as one of the other negative voices on this thread I have to say that this is too far. Infinite is great, and the fact that Paizo gets a cut is perfectly fine. If you're using their IP and making money off of it, giving them their "royalties" in place of appropriate licensing which would arrange for such makes perfect sense.

Which is super weird because the FCP gives away that profit stream for merchandizing that isn't an RPG product. Not sure why their idea was to choke out RPG products for more money but completely ignore profits from merchandisers now.

I do think that you're right on the fanworks - and even if we build RPG content, and give it for free using their IP, I'd be surprised if they could even give us a nintendo-style C&D or do anything litigious to us, because fanfiction has been legally defensible for a long time, and all we're doing is creating...

I do agree that we should try to keep this conversation focused on the topic at hand. Discussion of what existed in the past honestly isn't relevant in the post OGL crisis era. It's increasingly looking like the world of open RPGs is over, at least, those that are tied to corporations.

I think the best thing people can do at this time is spread the word about the change to the community. Paizo is pretty notorious for their communications being fragmented across different channels, which is less of an issue when the announcement has a lot of lead time (which isn't the case here).

Even if Paizo doubles down on the change, which I suspect they will, it's important that creators are aware before they commission artists, make investments, and launch projects that they may be heavily impacted or even forced to drop their work.

I’m still really struggling to understand the reasoning behind the jarring differences in the licences and policies. Why the ban on RPG terms in….rpg products? Why the ban on using proprietary imagery by fans when the proprietary imagery is what the fans love?

As to the effects on fan-run and utilised builders, wikis etc, it seems passing strange that there are a few that have special permissions, while others are left out in the cold to navigate what seems like Cheliax-level infernal contractery.

Yeah, theres really no way to spin the ban on tools that can't fit inside OneBookshelfs absolutely antiquated systems of use as anything other than a firm ban on anything that isn't one of their partner products. And when a majority of their partner products started as fan projects... Its definitely a bad look.

All of which seems to point to a massive derailing of the fan-support of the game, the setting and the actual community of both internal and external stakeholders of Paizo - staff, players, fans, organisers. ... And the value of fan-created databases, infospots and all the accumulated goodwill cannot be quantified in strict monetary terms but it is inexorably linked to the value of the game/products in the consumer’s mind. Want to buy into a new game system? Maybe. What if I told you it had awesome support, an engaged and engaging community with a healthy respect for the company and awesome free tools to make creating characters, adventures and other resources? Yes please!!! Free community support is not to be trifled with in the scramble for greater “control” or “protection”. There are other, kinder ways. Even in the harsh world of business, because ultimately businesses are inextricably linked with their communities.

But for those of you who are subscribers and who do care about the community, then TOZ’s cancellation example is definitely an option. Pretty sure it got results at least one time before…

This is where I'm at. I've been a subscriber for longer than I care to remember, and I championed Paizo during OGHell. But that list of titles on my profile is going to shrink pretty quickly if Paizo's decision of "let's attack our community creators and kill off 1e fanbases in favor of getting free marketing dollars by *checks notes* not getting licensing royalties from products using our IP for money" doesn't change

The free community projects *are* your free advertising dollars. Being able to sell your custom embroidered dice bag is awesome for etsy-ers but you know what also would've improved that? Just appending to the existing CUP, or making a very clear and open document on rules for monetizing fan merch... not cracking down on the tools that make those people interested in the system enough to make said merch.

Is anyone allowed to publish a 1 to 1 guide of ogl replacements? Can Paizo or does this have to be a fan project? It is allowed at all? Example can someone say looking for pitfiends? Nessari are right there.

Are the wikis going to have to get rid of the legacy posts and redirections?

Is anyone allowed to publish a 1 to 1 guide of ogl replacements? Can Paizo or does this have to be a fan project? It is allowed at all? Example can someone say looking for pitfiends? Nessari are right there.

Are the wikis going to have to get rid of the legacy posts and redirections?

I don't think the wiki maintainers would mind at all, sadly, if they had to. They already mucked up the wiki replacing all instances of "half elf" with whatever that incomprehensible nonce word Remaster has adopted is.

As for if it could be done, yes. Such a glossary (should it be just a glossary) would not require any permissions of any sort from Paizo or anyone else. And they got rid of "pit fiend" as a word? Whyyyyyyyyy. Argh.

I do think people are overstating things a little to say this is the equivalent of the OGL revision WotC attempted. Like, this isn't even close. Paizo isn't sectioning off their rules or anything of that sort--the ORC is still fully intact. They are becoming more protective of their setting material, and I have concerns that they may be overreaching with that and I kind of want to know the reasoning behind it, but that's completely different from what WOTC did.

When we overstate ourselves, we obfuscate to Paizo what our concerns are, and thus make it less likely that we will be heard and answered.

I also hate to say it, but I feel like restricting Pathfinder Infinite to prevent OGL content from being included on it... kind of makes sense? Like, it sucks for PF1 players, and I do sympathize, but being a fan of the older, unsupported editions always does kind of suck, and that's not something Paizo can necessarily fix. PF1 is a huge legal liability, and while the old content is probably fairly manageable, new content is likely to mix more and more with modern Pathfinder releases and create more and more confusion about what's actually canon. We can't have Pathfinder Infinite products in 2028 still calling them drow and aboleths, because if a social perception remains that that's what cave elves and alghollthu are, Paizo is effectively still profiting off of aboleths and drow in all their works. At least, I bet I can see a lawyer making that argument.

I can fully buy that that would be a liability for the license as a whole (and Paizo, which would be directly profiting off of OGL content in that case). It sucks! But that doesn't mean it's really Paizo's fault. PF1 was always an awkward port of D&D third edition. Legally, they probably don't feel safe continuing to profit off of D&D 3.75, and they also don't want to continue to effectively promote a license under WotC's control on their own platform.

And sure, they're leaving a lot of stuff up there. I'm pretty sure that taking down content that's already been published on Infinite would be incredibly destructive for the careers and portfolios of many freelancers, including some that probably work for Paizo at this point. It would make Paizo look unreliable, like you shouldn't publish anything for their current edition in case they put out a new one. Leaving the old stuff up there is still probably a bit of a liability, but taking it down could be a liability in its own way, and it would obviously be devastating for the community. I think we all know we'd be a lot more angry if Paizo had gone that road instead of this halfway approach. I'm more inclined to see the grandfather clause as an indication that Paizo is trying to not completely screw the PF1 publishers over with this already very challenging change, and I don't really see any reason not to read it in good faith.

EDIT: Also, "aiuvarin" slaps. It encourages people to read the Golarion elf lore, too, which is fantastic and a great draw for new players.

Something has been bothering me for a while, but I haven't been able to put my finger on it until just now:

"As of today, Paizo’s Community Use Policy has been replaced by the Paizo Fan Content Policy, which serves a similar role, but with different provisions."

So we're not community anymore, we're fans?

That's a dynamic shift in tone for the relationship. Some might assume (incorrectly) that the two the terms can be used interchangeably, but a Community is a cooperative, symbiotic relationship between the creators and the people who support their work.

On the other hand, a Fan's relationship to a creator is almost always one way, with the creators holding all the power. That's not inherently a bad thing, but keep in mind - we're not a Fandom. We're a Community that put their time, money, and energy into making Paizo awesome. Without the community, I would have never even heard of Paizo, much less gotten invested in their products.

If you say that's a pedantic distinction, well, you're not wrong to accuse me of pedantry but really think for a moment on how the language shifts the tone of the conversation. I can only hope it's unintentional.

As a bonus, the irony is palpable:

"Now go out there and start creating! We can’t wait to see what you have in store for us."

You know, unless it's PF1e, SF2e, or PF2e Legacy content that includes any of Paizo's IP, which is very heavily interwoven into those game systems. Or you want to build an accessibility tool, fan website, publish your own content, or an endless list of other community content that's suddenly in jeopardy. Then, well, I guess you're out of luck.

But hey, you can keep making and selling body pillows with Cayden Cailean's sweet tushy on them or whatever on Etsy, you can... keep doing that. Yay.

I do think people are overstating things a little to say this is the equivalent of the OGL revision WotC attempted. Like, this isn't even close. Paizo isn't sectioning off their rules or anything of that sort--the ORC is still fully intact. They are becoming more protective of their setting material, and I have concerns that they may be overreaching with that and I kind of want to know the reasoning behind it, but that's completely different from what WOTC did.

When we overstate ourselves, we obfuscate to Paizo what our concerns are, and thus make it less likely that we will be heard and answered.

I also hate to say it, but I feel like restricting Pathfinder Infinite to prevent OGL content from being included on it... kind of makes sense? Like, it sucks for PF1 players, and I do sympathize, but being a fan of the older, unsupported editions always does kind of suck, and that's not something Paizo can necessarily fix. PF1 is a huge legal liability, and while the old content is probably fairly manageable, new content is likely to mix more and more with modern Pathfinder releases and create more and more confusion about what's actually canon. We can't have Pathfinder Infinite products in 2028 still calling them drow and aboleths, because if a social perception remains that that's what cave elves and alghollthu are, Paizo is effectively still profiting off of aboleths and drow in all their works. At least, I bet I can see a lawyer making that argument.

I can fully buy that that would be a liability for the license as a whole (and Paizo, which would be directly profiting off of OGL content in that case). It sucks! But that doesn't mean it's really Paizo's fault. PF1 was always an awkward port of D&D third edition. Legally, they probably don't feel safe continuing to profit off of D&D 3.75, and they also don't want to continue to effectively promote a license under WotC's control on their own platform.

And sure, they're leaving a lot of stuff up there. I'm pretty sure that...

I think this is a very important point, and why I'm withholding judgement until Gencon is over and the staff are back on deck to give this the time that is needed to review concerns and come up with a plan. Paizo has earned a lot of good will with me, and I'm sure a lot of other players over the years, and they need to have a chance to respond. I do think it was a really dumb time to drop this news, especially effective immediately, but jumping on the train to boycott town is a little premature. Ultimately, the de-OGLification of Pathfinder had to happen after WotC's actions, but I hope Paizo can manage it with a little more grace than they're currently showing.

I do think people are overstating things a little to say this is the equivalent of the OGL revision WotC attempted. Like, this isn't even close. Paizo isn't sectioning off their rules or anything of that sort--the ORC is still fully intact. They are becoming more protective of their setting material, and I have concerns that they may be overreaching with that and I kind of want to know the reasoning behind it, but that's completely different from what WOTC did.

When we overstate ourselves, we obfuscate to Paizo what our concerns are, and thus make it less likely that we will be heard and answered.

I also hate to say it, but I feel like restricting Pathfinder Infinite to prevent OGL content from being included on it... kind of makes sense? Like, it sucks for PF1 players, and I do sympathize, but being a fan of the older, unsupported editions always does kind of suck, and that's not something Paizo can necessarily fix. PF1 is a huge legal liability, and while the old content is probably fairly manageable, new content is likely to mix more and more with modern Pathfinder releases and create more and more confusion about what's actually canon. We can't have Pathfinder Infinite products in 2028 still calling them drow and aboleths, because if a social perception remains that that's what cave elves and alghollthu are, Paizo is effectively still profiting off of aboleths and drow in all their works. At least, I bet I can see a lawyer making that argument.

I can fully buy that that would be a liability for the license as a whole (and Paizo, which would be directly profiting off of OGL content in that case). It sucks! But that doesn't mean it's really Paizo's fault. PF1 was always an awkward port of D&D third edition. Legally, they probably don't feel safe continuing to profit off of D&D 3.75, and they also don't want to continue to effectively promote a license under WotC's control on their own platform.

And sure, they're leaving a lot of stuff up there. I'm pretty sure that...

I do agree that this, ultimately, is motivated by about Paizo's need to protect their IP and their company from litigation. I don't believe that this is the best or only way to go about it - but maybe Paizo does. If so, it would be good to hear their justification.

I don't think it's "overstating" things to compare this to OGL 1.1, although I would agree it would be a stretch to treat them as equivalent.

Think of the abrupt timing. Originally, I thought it was 5 weeks, which is an extremely short period of time for people to get the news and react, especially considering that Paizo isn't the best at being centralized information out and the tone of the blog post vastly misconstrues (hopefully unintentionally) the ramifications this will have on large swaths of the community.

But no, it's in effect immediately for all new projects. The five weeks are anything that's in flight. As a publisher, Paizo knows exactly how ruinous that is to creators.

And there was no discussion, no lead-up, no community input - just a Thrune-esque proclamation that it's in place and that people should be excited about it.

And then there's the walling of the garden into Pathfinder Infinite.

All of this definitely reminds of the OGL debacle, even though I'll be the first to say that it's not the exact same situation.

Ultimately, Paizo won't be able to blame WotC for every decision they make. Don't get me wrong, a lot falls on WotC's shoulders here, but that isn't a limitless get out of Gallowspire card.

To be clear, I'm strictly talking about the OGL stuff, not the CUP stuff. I don't feel confident making any statements about the CUP stuff.

Straight-up, if Paizo kills Hephaistos, Dyslexic, Pathbuilder, and the other builders, I'm pretty much going to quit playing SF and PF.

The fact of the matter is that Paizo has way more competition than it used to, and many of those games are much easier to get into and play. The ONLY reason I'm still playing any D20 system now is because of the tools. If they go away, you will lose players because your system is nothing special and there are dozens of others that are easier to learn and play. The tools make Paizo's games easier to pick up and easier to play

I'll say that again, just to get the point across to any Paizo Employee who may be lurking: If the tools go away, so will I.

I simply have better things to do with my life than tearing my hair out with 20+ niggly bonuses. I'll simply move to a less-complicated system.

It's these tools which make these complex systems accessible and less cumbersome. It's not 1970: no one is entertained by grinding out minor details anymore.

Considering that quality of the writing, layout, and formatting of the sourcebooks has been deteriorating drastically, tools like Hephaistos, Pathbuilder, and Dyslexic are not just helpful, they're essential.

I would argue that these tools are essential not just to players, but to Paizo itself. I don't think they realize just how important they are now, or are else overestimating their popularity in their hubris. We've gone past critical mass; it is almost mandatory for an RPG system, particularly complex, crunchy ones like Pathfinder and Starfinder, to have community tools. If those tools aren't there, it makes it more difficult to get in to the game, and less community support will be forthcoming. Less community support means less buzz. Less buzz means less interest.

Honestly, I think this is stupid. OSR games are already falling off in popularity as is D20 in general (D&D notwithstanding) in lieu of less-complex systems.

This is just going to exacerbate the issue.

Didn't Paizo learn anything from the OGL debacle?

I'm a grown-up person with a grown-up life. My time is precious. I'd rather be rolling dice and RPing than doing incidental math.

We replaced slide-rules with calculators 50 years ago.

If I'm forced to use slide rules to do calculus, I'm just gonna take up painting.

Something has been bothering me for a while, but I haven't been able to put my finger on it until just now:

Mark Moreland, Director of Brand Strategy wrote:

"As of today, Paizo’s Community Use Policy has been replaced by the Paizo Fan Content Policy, which serves a similar role, but with different provisions."

So we're not community anymore, we're fans?

That's a dynamic shift in tone for the relationship. Some might assume (incorrectly) that the two the terms can be used interchangeably, but a Community is a cooperative, symbiotic relationship between the creators and the people who support their work.

On the other hand, a Fan's relationship to a creator is almost always one way, with the creators holding all the power. That's not inherently a bad thing, but keep in mind - we're not a Fandom. We're a Community that put their time, money, and energy into making Paizo awesome. Without the community, I would have never even heard of Paizo, much less gotten invested in their products.

If you say that's a pedantic distinction, well, you're not wrong to accuse me of pedantry but really think for a moment on how the language shifts the tone of the conversation. I can only hope it's unintentional.

As a bonus, the irony is palpable:

Mark Moreland, Director of Brand Strategy wrote:

"Now go out there and start creating! We can’t wait to see what you have in store for us."

You know, unless it's PF1e, SF2e, or PF2e Legacy content that includes any of Paizo's IP, which is very heavily interwoven into those game systems. Or you want to build an accessibility tool, fan website, publish your own content, or an endless list of other community content that's suddenly in jeopardy. Then, well, I guess you're out of luck.

But hey, you can keep making and selling body pillows with Cayden Cailean's sweet tushy on them or whatever on Etsy, you can... keep doing that. Yay.

Hello, queen pedant here! Bow before me. I kid. I'm not some company that expects respect after enforcing draconian control over their fans. Or, rather, their community.

I'd like to thank you for pointing out the difference in language and the expectation it creates. In my earlier posts I've also used the terms interchangably to sound less drab and more eloquent (I can't help it) but I'll refrain from giving Paizo this quarter in the future. I was taken in by a community when I got here, not a fandom, and certainly not a company. And while I would self-describe as a fan myself (for now, I should say, both because I'd love to contribute more and because Paizo is testing my goodwill), it's the community that's getting hurt, it's them that I'm fighting for. I'll never pick up a 1e product on Infinite or otherwise, I'll be unlikely to pick up any third-party content really, but I'm a firm believer in every game's "modding" community (thank you Redgar for the comparison), and I'm not going to let Paizo stamp it out without at least a good struggle. May GenCon and beyond bring good tidings, both for our sake, and Paizo's.

For what it's worth, as a pretty pedantic person, I don't feel any ideological difference. The original version of Pathfinder Infinite was Wayfinder, published by the self-dubbed Paizo Fans United. Working with Golarion is fanwork. I also think that using extremely similar names for different licenses would have been confusing. I don't read any malice or deeper meaning in the name change.

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance.

Or just banality, in this case. I really don't think the name remotely matters. If you're working with Golarion--not just the RPG, but Golarion, the creative content created and owned by Paizo writers--you're doing fanwork. Paizo should be doing their best to enable that fanwork, and I love that fanwork can get compensated, but, like, calling it "fanwork" is not a slur.

Also, like, the setting books are a huge part of Paizo's income. Paizo makes their entire RPG basically open access, but they've always been more protective of the setting. Acting like Golarion is obligated to be basically publicly-owned is. I dunno, guys. Measure yourselves a little.

Ultimately, Paizo won't be able to blame WotC for every decision they make. Don't get me wrong, a lot falls on WotC's shoulders here, but that isn't a limitless get out of Gallowspire card.

This is the big element. As Kobold Catgirl said - its different than WotC's move. WotC's move enabled creators to monetize and produce more clearly (identical to the change in the FCP) but it also tried to steal profit from all the creators using the OGL for monetary gain. This was an a pro-WotC, anti-publisher, pro-"fan" move one from their previous stance that technically didn't impact their community - it only impacted the communities downstream of the OGL, like Paizo's, because it disabled Paizo's ability to stay in business if they continued using the OGL with the monetary changes that WotC was trying to put in place. But it didn't impact their own community because their own community was already hilariously restricted and the vast majority of D&D community sites are illegal and under the radar or play whack-a-mole with C&Ds.

Paizo's move, on the converse, is to enable further monetization of their brand by non-RPG creator "fans" at no benefit to anyone but their own wallet, while creators producing RPG content to benefit the community are grossly restrained, and those who use OGL-derived product are entirely prohibited unless they jump through a whole bunch of legal hoops. It was a Pro-Paizo, Publisher-agnostic, Pro-"Fan" but actually Anti-Creator and HUGELY Anti-community move. It basically forces every member of the community to learn legalese and go through their enrollment process, and don't realize that they're breaking the law by publishing statblocks for their ideas on their personal blogs for download.

Don't forget on infinite is the only place you can publish Paizo IP related works - Where they own the ability to use your work in their works with no payment, don't forget about that caveat of the infinite license. If they force everyone into their walled garden, they could even stop paying freelancers and just use SFI/PFI supplements to fill out their books - but they've assured us they're not going to do that, its just in the license in case of an accidental inclusion or overlap!

And by-the-by, "a Fan is defined as an individual or small collective of individuals creating content primarily out of the love of Paizo Material rather than for financial gain." - meaning artists and crafters and creators who create work as even a part-time job are not permitted to use this policy. And if you love the material and want to publish your work for free in any way that actually encourages love of the material? Nah, that's banned unless you wanna jump through their storefront of very limited options. How few people can actually use the FCP? Per the clarifications, it says you can do limited runs of product, but the main header of the FCP page says it has to be not mass produced/handmade, so the FAQ clarification of getting 100 prints or 50 shirts to sell on etsy seems contradictory there, even. Better make sure your etsy doesn't support your livelihood though! If so, you cease being a fan! Same with that social media following, or your youtube channel! Rules Lawyer, looks like you need a commercial license, unless you can make Paizo believe you're not living off your youtube/patreon/related revenue!

I guess in that aspect, this might even be worse than the CUP for media content creators too, as much like living off of Disability in America, the moment you can afford to live through your efforts, the carpet is yanked out from under your feet. With the CUP they could take as much money in as you want, so long as you don't paywall the content.

So much of these changes have nothing to do with WotC. This is a huge, sweeping, incredible change that impacts so much and has very little to do with the OGL. If it had anything to do with WotC threats, they'd be taking down all OGL content immediately too, including from their partners.

With this change Paizo has effectively killed Hephaistos (https://hephaistos.azurewebsites.net/), which my group has happily used for years. The patreon is holding a vote on if the devs should shutter the project entirely or just to use OGL rules.

I mean this with all the venom it implies: what a horribly WotC-esque change, Paizo.

It basically forces every member of the community to learn legalese and go through their enrollment process, and don't realize that they're breaking the law by publishing statblocks for their ideas on their personal blogs for download.

This doesn't seem likely to really become a huge issue. If someone publishes a statblock for a monster that, I dunno, mentions Cheliax, Paizo will at worst send them a message saying "please don't mention Cheliax", and as long as they vagueify the language, it stops there. Odds are good Paizo doesn't even notice the small blog, but assuming they do and decide to act, that's the worst-case scenario.

I dunno, y'all. Like. Golarion was never OGL, it's not gonna be ORC, it's always been the part of Paizo's copyright (along with the adventures) that Paizo restricts access to, and they've always been way more laissez-faire with their setting than a lot of the industry. During all the War of Immortals speculation, I didn't even pull out my setting books. I looked at the wiki, because almost all the information has been posted online for free. Even with these changes, Paizo is still extremely easy-going, even by industry standards and arguably even by non-WotC industry standards.

It's one thing to say "yes, but I believe these specific changes are damaging". That's totally fair and may be true. It's quite another to act like the status quo hasn't always been exceptionally generous, or like works using Golarion content are anything other than fanworks for the most popular PF2 setting on the market.

Like, I know I sound like a landlord here, but the reason everyone's afraid of even the ghost of potentially losing access to the setting is because Lost Omens is enormously popular. Because it's good. That's value Paizo writers and artists created. Yes, they had the community's help, but it's not like we came up with the Mana Wastes or the Radiant Prism. This is value that you're directly benefiting from when you post stuff about Desna on your hypothetical small blog.

Paizo saying, "sure, but if you're making money off of it, we should get a cut" is an incredibly normal thing to say about a property they... own. God, I do sound like a landlord.

For what it's worth, as a pretty pedantic person, I don't feel any ideological difference. The original version of Pathfinder Infinite was Wayfinder, published by the self-dubbed Paizo Fans United. Working with Golarion is fanwork. I also think that using extremely similar names for different licenses would have been confusing. I don't read any malice or deeper meaning in the name change.

I also don't read any malice into Paizo's actions, critical as I may be. I hope that's been clear throughout.

I do think there's some overlap in the terms, and as I said, some of this may well be me being pedantic.

But the change of terminology still rubs me the wrong way, in context of the announcement and how it effects fans individually and the community as a whole.

YMMV.

That's totally fair, Artofregicide, and I appreciate you staying measured even in pointing it out.

Ravien wrote:

It basically forces every member of the community to learn legalese and go through their enrollment process, and don't realize that they're breaking the law by publishing statblocks for their ideas on their personal blogs for download.

This doesn't seem likely to really become a huge issue. If someone publishes a statblock for a monster that, I dunno, mentions Cheliax, Paizo will at worst send them a message saying "please don't mention Cheliax", and as long as they vagueify the language, it stops there. Odds are good Paizo doesn't even notice the small blog, but assuming they do and decide to act, that's the worst-case scenario.

I dunno, y'all. Like. Golarion was never OGL, it's not gonna be ORC, it's always been the part of Paizo's copyright (along with the adventures) that Paizo restricts access to, and they've always been way more laissez-faire with their setting than a lot of the industry. During all the War of Immortals speculation, I didn't even pull out my setting books. I looked at the wiki, because almost all the information has been posted online for free. Even with these changes, Paizo is still extremely easy-going, even by industry standards and arguably even by non-WotC industry standards.

It's one thing to say "yes, but I believe these specific changes are damaging". That's totally fair and may be true. It's quite another to act like the status quo hasn't always been exceptionally generous, or like works using Golarion content are anything other than fanworks for the most popular PF2 setting on the market.

Like, I know I sound like a landlord here, but the reason everyone's afraid of even the ghost of potentially losing access to the setting is because Lost Omens is enormously popular. Because it's good. That's value Paizo writers and artists created. Yes, they had the community's help, but it's not like we came up with the Mana Wastes or the Radiant Prism. This is value that you're directly benefiting from when you post stuff about Desna on your hypothetical...

I think we're closer to agreement than you might think. It's the way this was communicated and the timeframe that's the crux of the issue, not the fact that Paizo should have ownership of their work. Because we do want them to stay in business and keep publishing, paying artists and writers, and being a force for good in the hobby.

Although, it's worth noting that a bunch of stuff that's canonical in Golarion was created by the community. It's actually much, much harder to parse the contributions of the community from the company than you might think. The argument that "Paizo made up all this stuff, so they own it and can do whatever they want" is a compelling argument in a court of law but less so in where I spend my time, energy, and money.

Oh yeah and I'm not paying the rent, not sorry. ;)

The community did do a lot, which I acknowledged in my post! But like, they still did less than published Paizo products. It's definitely, absolutely Paizo's setting, but TTRPGs tend to have a strong push-and-pull, and we can remain aware of that without overstating ourselves. If you want to use official Paizo art or official Paizo writing, obviously that's reasonable for Paizo to place some restrictions on. Just because the community arguably helped a character like Erastil develop doesn't mean people should go, as an excessive silly example, selling prints of all of his official art without credit.

I'm definitely not saying "Paizo made up all this stuff, so they own it and can do whatever they want". But that's not what Paizo's saying, either. The license remains extremely permissive, but it restricts a few things that are potential legal poison pills (like OGL stuff, which does legitimately complicate the situation for fanwikis in places and is a definite shame) and creates a tighter boundary around for-profit fanworks (which would be, in my opinion, totally reasonable if it didn't risk creating enormous hurdles for PFI-incompatible products).

This is value that you're directly benefiting from when you post stuff about Desna on your hypothetical...

Oh I absolutely agree that if you make money off of it, they should too. The problem I have is they're cracking down on free efforts. They're cracking down on the community expanding upon systems they've abandoned by making doing so illegal, even for free.

The Lost Omens setting I find tragically boring, but Desna's Path is fantastically amazing. And most importantly - is built in a way that everyone's homebrew fits into the setting without modification. And now Paizo is saying that they're no longer allowing the original intent of the system to exist.

That's the real crime here.

They're cracking down on the community expanding upon systems they've abandoned by making doing so illegal, even for free.

Yeah, because the OGl isn't something Paizo feels safe continuing to hold under their umbrella. It sucks! But it doesn't scan to me as anything malicious. The OGl is not considered safe ground anymore for Golarion content.

If Desna's Path is truly good on its own, a solid, standalone work, it surely either doesn't need the OGL or doesn't need Golarion's name recognition, which you say is pretty much irrelevant to your love for it. I don't know the details of it and don't want to assume, so if you could be more specific, I'd feel more comfortable engaging with this. Googling doesn't turn up much of anything.

EDIT: Literally, all I get is a Kingmaker quest. Googling "Desna's Path" -kingmaker gives me nothing.

EDIT x2: Oh, it's so wild that Google literally gets me nothing about the official name of the Starfinder setting. Gotcha! So it's basically the old discussion--people want to use Paizo's setting without Paizo's involvement. I dunno, I stand by what I said.

Since our licensing update on July 22nd, we’ve been listening to your feedback on the potential impact of these licenses on community tools and websites. Paizo is grateful to these creators and spaces for the immense value they add to our brand and player community. We are committed to adding options to ensure that a range of community projects are protected by the license.

With Gen Con on the horizon, we can’t offer an immediate solution, but we are working to reach one that is both sustainable for Paizo and supports the community we love. As always, thank you for your feedback—we hear you and are working to address your concerns as swiftly as possible.

That's fantastic to learn, Jonathan, and thank you very much for the update. It's more-or-less exactly what I personally was hoping to hear: Language will be added to ensure that this license still allows for some of the important community projects that appeared to be slipping between the cracks.

I'm kind of hoping language will also be added to clarify the positions of VTTs and online tools like character building programs that aren't specifically linked to accessibility, but I guess we'll see. I'm withholding judgment, but this is a positive update during what's obviously a very busy period.

(I am fully assuming this delay will also translate to a likewise somewhat longer grace period for the affected parties, but I'm personally inclined to assume good faith on that front until I hear otherwise.)

Jonathan, your post is exactly what I have been waiting to see. I look forward to seeing Paizo's response.

Currently considering what to do about pfsprep.com. (For those of you who don't know it's a website with support material for Paizo Organized Play material. Things like statblocks or other organizational aids.

It currently uses both CUP and OGL materials (and includes licenses for both).

It's still functional but has some technical debt that I don't really have the time or ability to deal with etc.

Fortunately PF2 scenarios come with all the statblocks needed in nice appendixes, so pfsprep has become much less necessary than before. There's still some good stuff up there, but very little material in the last year, and much less traffic than during the height of PF1. (Although I suspect the small community still running PF1 materials makes heavy use of it)

Considering it costs me real time and money to maintain every year (There's no advertising, or other revenue. I did solicit donations ones and got a bit of cash) I'm strongly considering letting it go, rather than trying to wrap my head around new licensing requirements.

Very glad to hear a possible solution is being considered!

Just as a note, because the distinction is important, because the FCP license change went into effect immediately with no warning to anyone the impact isn’t a “potential impact” it is a present and extant one. That’s the danger of having big license changes with no feedback period or grace period.

They have indicated that they're going to assume good faith and hold off on going after anyone right away, so there is an effective "good faith" grace period. I assume the firmer "5 week" deadline on professional OGL publications was just for the benefit of third-party publishers who kind of need a more solid timeline.

I hope we get an update by the time War of the Immortals releases!

For what it's worth, as a pretty pedantic person, I don't feel any ideological difference. The original version of Pathfinder Infinite was Wayfinder, published by the self-dubbed Paizo Fans United. Working with Golarion is fanwork.

I can kind of get the point you're making, where Wayfinder generically stands in for publishing fan works. But it undersells the editing, layout, and organization work that unpaid volunteers put into Wayfinder, none of which is inherently part of self-publishing works to Infinite. It also doesn't acknowledge the money paid out of pocket to make print runs of it for PaizoCons because the CUP prohibited charging for it; Infinite works that sell can make their expenses back through sales as well as donations or patronage.

It also undersells the Infinite side, where people and groups are making significant money—not livelihood money, but significant nonetheless—using Golarion's setting regardless of Paizo's cut. The CUP didn't give Wayfinder contributors that option.

CUP works still made Paizo money, if indirectly. Most edits to PathfinderWiki came from people who bought all of the books or PDFs themselves, and I imagine the same was true of CUP-era AoN. PathfinderWiki links to books and the Paizo store, and so did AoN even before the commercial license. But no CUP project could charge for access and were strictly limited to covering expenses.

I looked at the wiki, because almost all the information has been posted online for free.

Wiki content's shared freely because the CUP requires it, but it's largely written out of content that wiki contributors paid Paizo to access, so it's hard to call it "posted online for free".

More to your point, a large part of my concern and participation here is trying to figure what can remain shared freely under the FCP, and how much has to be removed.

For instance, the CUP allowed verbatim use of fiction posted to the Paizo Blog. The FCP explicitly does not. Editors either have to rewrite pages for the iconics and other articles that have used fiction content or never touch them again in order to remain compliant under the FCP.

PathfinderWiki also uses terminology from OGL mechanics all over the wiki, on almost every creature, person, and deity page that includes 1E or 2E legacy sources. CRs, levels, domains and subdomains, class mechanics, schools of magic—hell, there are canon creatures that still cite the 3.5/d20 Tomb of Horrors books on there.

It's still unclear to me whether the wiki's use of these OGL terms in a mechanical context is compliant with the FCP, and if so whether that content might also make the wiki vulnerable to legal action from WotC, which the FCP suggests would become wiki contributors' responsibility.

Is that likely? It doesn't seem like it, but I don't like trusting WotC. Is any such risk worth it for what remains a fully volunteer project, something the FCP doesn't change? I'd argue no.

Whether the FCP changes or not, these points still matter. But it's still a scramble to understand whether there's any impact at all.

Are the wikis going to have to get rid of the legacy posts and redirections?

No, at least as far as Mark's told us on the PathfinderWiki/StarfinderWiki Discord, where he suggested that just referring to OGL terms or concepts in a non-rules resource should be covered by fair use doctrine.

I appreciate Mark's perspective, but to me that's still a little shaky. The definition of and allowances from fair use are still subjective, and Mark also noted that any enforcement of OGL-related usage is ultimately up to WotC/Hasbro, not Paizo.

Not a comfortable situation either way, but at a minimum the wiki should be able to link an OGL concept to its non-OGL equivalent. Where I'm still lost is whether the FCP allows the wikis to mention or categorize content by OGL mechanical concepts like CRs, creature types/subtypes, deity domains/subdomains, and other such things relevant primarily or only in a mechanical sense, even if they aren't the predominant content on the wiki.

That wouldn't be much of a loss to me in the big picture, since AoN is the better source for those details and we can freely link to it. It's the uncertainty that's concerning, since if it's not allowed we're technically already non-compliant and at risk from Paizo.

They already mucked up the wiki replacing all instances of "half elf" with whatever that incomprehensible nonce word Remaster has adopted is.

As the sole "they" who pulled the trigger on that change across PathfinderWiki in order to make it consistent with the language Paizo switched to using, I'm personally sad and sorry that it upset you or made the wiki worse for you.

As for if it could be done, yes. Such a glossary (should it be just a glossary) would not require any permissions of any sort from Paizo or anyone else.

Since Paizo can't or won't officially compile it, such a glossary—or a single resource of any comprehensiveness—might not be possible if left entirely to the community, especially on a volunteer nature that's exempt from FCP's monetization allowances.

There have been a number of other community efforts to track and map Remaster changes to OGL equivalents, like KingTreyIII's Google Sheet. For lore changes and replacements, I've been updating a list of canon changes as I encounter them and try to track their implementation in PathfinderWiki; I haven't limited it to OGL-related changes but have tried to track whether the changes happened before or after the Remaster. I've seen others that are focused on mechanics, like the Foundry team's, or this one credited to a Jacob G.

But all such resources require constant maintenance, and are subject to different interpretations of Paizo's actions and the differing focuses of disparate communities. KingTreyIII's list has gaps for me when editing PathfinderWiki because it implies that concepts were removed from the game when they haven't been removed from the setting canon. My list, which includes OGL-associated creatures and terms that Paizo staff have confirmed remain part of the canon setting history, probably isn't as useful to KingTreyIII's work of converting APs in ways that are free of OGL content.

And even when PC2 is out, the Remaster won't be over. Every new AP issue, setting book, and rulebook will likely reintroduce, replace, or retcon things from before the Remaster. New novels and fiction could do the same for the setting even if mechanics are never made or published for them.

For example, Remaster sources don't include mechanics for ettins or bloodseekers, so KingTreyIII's sheet lists them as removed and AoN lists both as "legacy content", its default for anything that hasn't had mechanics published for them in a Remastered source. But ettins are mentioned in Tian Xia World Guide and bloodseekers are mentioned in both GM Core and Pactbreaker, so they both apparently remain active Remastered canon subjects despite their lack of Remastered mechanics, which might not even be necessary for them.

I don't mean to simplify the relationship between Wayfinder and Pathfinder Infinite or to imply that they're identical. I wondered if I needed to clarify, but assumed it was clearer than I suppose it was, so that's my bad. Wayfinder formerly existed as the most prominent means of getting Golarion work published, and was thus a huge stepping stone for budding freelancers. Pathfinder Infinite has replaced it in that role, which is a big part of why Wayfinder recently concluded. That's the connection I was drawing.

My point was that the original non-Paizo publication method for newbie writers and artists willingly identified itself as a fan project, despite the immense professional-level labor being dedicated to it, and it did so because it was working within a copyright space it did not have any claim to own.

Nowadays, Pathfinder Infinite has greatly increased fan access to the setting and enabled fans to actually (try to) profit off of their work, which is super cool. I don't consider "fanwork" to be derisive language, but it does still describe the fundamental interaction of working within someone else's world--particularly when, as in the case of the non-PFI works we've been talking about, you have no professional or monetary relationship to the owners of the property.

Anyways, something I've been wondering about: Could someone publish the rules text of their product for free on their blog, then link to their rules-free PFI-published document that has all the flavor? Would that be considered bad faith, or would that be considered a reasonable compromise?

Like, say I make a Pathfinder 1e adventure set in Nex. Could I post the raw statblocks and information on my blog, but publish the proper adventure as a rules-free supplement with all the flavor and context and read-aloud text on Pathfinder Infinite? Obviously that's imperfect, but it'd be a decent option if allowed. It might even let you expand your audience, if you include notes and advice for people running the adventure via other systems. My friend once ran a PF2 game using a Swords & Wizardry adventure.

This is a hypothetical. I don't write PF1 stuff, but I do want to see if we can find solutions to this.

I would argue that these tools are essential not just to players, but to Paizo itself. I don't think they realize just how important they are now, or are else overestimating their popularity in their hubris. We've gone past critical mass; it is almost mandatory for an RPG system, particularly complex, crunchy ones like Pathfinder and Starfinder, to have community tools. If those tools aren't there, it makes it more difficult to get in to the game, and less community support will be forthcoming. Less community support means less buzz. Less buzz means less interest.

100% this. I pick the system I play based on the availability of the tools and availability of the data.

Pathfinder was an absolute breathe of fresh air for me. Coming from the 5e space where the data is available but hiding under a dark shelf. PF2e data was available in multiple places, available in multiple formats and unlocked some absolutely amazing potential.

I don't play the way I assume Paizo thinks I do though. I don't use the run of the mill tools though and don't want to. I use Obsidian.md to create my own internal wiki system that is completely customisable to how I play my game. I am however completely reliant on other popular tools for the data that enables me to create my notes.

I was afraid that Paizo had just turned the light off in a corner of the book shelf and was about to create a shaded area. The update posted above gives me hope that is not the case.

Since Paizo is apparently "listening to your feedback on the potential impact of these licenses on community tools and websites," I want to add my voice as another person who would donate my books and move on if it became difficult and/or impossible to openly create community tools or run a podcast/YT channel. Paizo's games are as popular as they are due to their ease of access. That access is possible through the hard work of dedicated fans, not the company itself. Don't do a Games Workshop.

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance.

So, Paizo, your Performance check to convey your license was 15 below the community's Will DC, even with the Very Easy modification granted by the OGL event. I'm afraid that was a critical failure. The community is in outrage. Would you like to use a Hero Point?

All seriousness, I'm glad the folks are seeing the problem and are willing to address it. better to give benefit of the doubt and assume it was accidental. Feels more like poor execution rather than actual ill intent, but the results if things go they are are being conveyed, and I hope Paizo utilizes this time to communicate and correct course. Paizo, you got your augury cast. If the result is woe, you know what to do.

TOZ wrote:

Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance.

So, Paizo, your Performance check to convey your license was 15 below the community's Will DC, even with the Very Easy modification granted by the OGL event. I'm afraid that was a critical failure. The community is in outrage. Would you like to use a Hero Point?

I get this is intended to be comedic... but I would hardly attribute "Very Easy" to anything associated with the OGL event.