New and Revised Licenses

I look forward to Paizo addressing this in due time and hope they can thread the needle between the companies needs and the needs of the community.

Personally where you see “evokes setting” and “inspires creativity” I see “needless” and “hand-holding”. But I get it, we each come to RPGs looking for and requiring different things. I want a ruleset that is rigorous and allows me to express my creativity...

I mean…how does Pathfinder not allow for that? I don’t play in Golarion. I got my own world I made. I made regions and changed options to fit those regions as there was player interest for a specific thing. And I’ve turned down options because it doesn’t fit the world I’m making. And now I’m doing it all over again for SF2, with no Gap and no Drift (though I’ve of course made mysteries of my own and my own version of FTL). I…really don’t think it limits my creativity. I don’t convert whole books, just what my players specifically want

Though on the topic at hand, a solution I hope that comes from this, at bare minimum, is a collection of terms that are safe to use for OGL Starfinder for continual development without the CUP, assuming revoking it is something they can’t really change. Because I do agree this is a lot harder to do than with Pathfinder

But I also eagerly await their response, I’m very curious how they will handle it. For now, all we can do is wait

@Arita - you have incorrectly attributed my quote to Sibelius Eos Owm.

My point is that all the flavor text is entirely extraneous, and the porting of rules across a miasma of Lost Omens books only exacerbates the issue.

It really is a pain in the butt, because you can assume that much of the setting is restricted material: vesk, Barathu, Basatha, Lashunta, Pahtra, Shirren, Skittermander, Ysoki, Borai, and Prismeni. All from the playtest book, only two of them have "open" names: Android and Human.

It goes WAY beyond having to call the Drift "hyperspace" or any other generic term.

Just found out that none of my players will be able to use products like Hephaistos in the future because Paizo is crippling the fan creators that make playing their games fun. I do not understand how it makes sense for a business to prohibit someone from creating a character builder website for their game for free. It is a disgrace.

It really is a pain in the butt, because you can assume that much of the setting is restricted material: vesk, Barathu, Basatha, Lashunta, Pahtra, Shirren, Skittermander, Ysoki, Borai, and Prismeni. All from the playtest book, only two of them have "open" names: Android and Human.

I'm not entirely certain that all of those are necessarily 'closed' names. E.g., from D&D, the name "sahuagin" was OGC despite having been a (to my knowledge) entirely made up term. I think proper names are for the most part clearly not open, but things like race names and such (unless they themselves include a proper noun) seem like they fall into a more unclear area; I certainly have in the past been under the assumption that such were generally considered OGC, but it's admittedly been years since I studied the text of the OGL and Paizo's OGC and product identity statements in any detail.

Regardless, it would be great if Paizo could provide clarity one way or the other on this for the folks who these changes potentially affect.

Noven wrote:

It really is a pain in the butt, because you can assume that much of the setting is restricted material: vesk, Barathu, Basatha, Lashunta, Pahtra, Shirren, Skittermander, Ysoki, Borai, and Prismeni. All from the playtest book, only two of them have "open" names: Android and Human.

I'm not entirely certain that all of those are necessarily 'closed' names. E.g., from D&D, the name "sahuagin" was OGC despite having been a (to my knowledge) entirely made up term. I think proper names are for the most part clearly not open, but things like race names and such (unless they themselves include a proper noun) seem like they fall into a more unclear area; I certainly have in the past been under the assumption that such were generally considered OGC, but it's admittedly been years since I studied the text of the OGL and Paizo's OGC and product identity statements in any detail.

Regardless, it would be great if Paizo could provide clarity one way or the other on this for the folks who these changes potentially affect.

Bad example as that is literally one of the Proper Creature names that needed to be removed from the remaster and replaced in Monster Core and are now called Sedacthy.

I will also note that the fact this discussion is being taken place, in the context of free projects often done by volunteers, is enough of a problem on its own.

Nobody wanting to contribute to the community should, nor wants to, consult with lawyers about the legality of their contribution. CUP provided an easy go ahead. Now *everyone* must make a "fully fledged product" with all the considerations thereof or face legal risk. Many will just move to something else.

It would have been a lot more considerate to have temporarily reinstated the CUP while they’re considering these unknown revisions on an unknown timetable. Instead everything has just been left in legal limbo and no one has any idea if their project is dead or not.

Of course, the most considerate thing would have been not revoking the CUP with no notice to begin with.

AFigureOfBlue wrote:

Noven wrote:

It really is a pain in the butt, because you can assume that much of the setting is restricted material: vesk, Barathu, Basatha, Lashunta, Pahtra, Shirren, Skittermander, Ysoki, Borai, and Prismeni. All from the playtest book, only two of them have "open" names: Android and Human.

I'm not entirely certain that all of those are necessarily 'closed' names. E.g., from D&D, the name "sahuagin" was OGC despite having been a (to my knowledge) entirely made up term. I think proper names are for the most part clearly not open, but things like race names and such (unless they themselves include a proper noun) seem like they fall into a more unclear area; I certainly have in the past been under the assumption that such were generally considered OGC, but it's admittedly been years since I studied the text of the OGL and Paizo's OGC and product identity statements in any detail.

Regardless, it would be great if Paizo could provide clarity one way or the other on this for the folks who these changes potentially affect.

Bad example as that is literally one of the Proper Creature names that needed to be removed from the remaster and replaced in Monster Core and are now called Sedacthy.

Perhaps I lost the thread on which scenario was being discussed with how long this thread got. For Infinite, the Starfinder race names that are Paizo IP (that is, the ones you listed) would presumably continue to be usable because they're Paizo IP. For anything being published under the OGL (not on Infinite), or resources/tools that are using the OGL to access the Starfinder rules, those race names (assuming they are indeed OGC as I'm inclined to think they are per my previous content) would continue to be OGC the same way that sahuagin are and will continue to be (though, just like sahuagin couldn't be ported over under that name into ORC content, these race names also couldn't be ported into ORC content until Paizo republished them under the ORC, but that shouldn't be relevant to any already-existing SF1e-compatible tools or resources). Is there a third scenario that I've overlooked here?

Nicolas Paradise wrote:

AFigureOfBlue wrote:

Noven wrote:

It really is a pain in the butt, because you can assume that much of the setting is restricted material: vesk, Barathu, Basatha, Lashunta, Pahtra, Shirren, Skittermander, Ysoki, Borai, and Prismeni. All from the playtest book, only two of them have "open" names: Android and Human.

I'm not entirely certain that all of those are necessarily 'closed' names. E.g., from D&D, the name "sahuagin" was OGC despite having been a (to my knowledge) entirely made up term. I think proper names are for the most part clearly not open, but things like race names and such (unless they themselves include a proper noun) seem like they fall into a more unclear area; I certainly have in the past been under the assumption that such were generally considered OGC, but it's admittedly been years since I studied the text of the OGL and Paizo's OGC and product identity statements in any detail.

Regardless, it would be great if Paizo could provide clarity one way or the other on this for the folks who these changes potentially affect.

Bad example as that is literally one of the Proper Creature names that needed to be removed from the remaster and replaced in Monster Core and are now called Sedacthy.

Perhaps I lost the thread on which scenario was being discussed with how long this thread got. For Infinite, the Starfinder race names that are Paizo IP (that is, the ones you listed) would presumably continue to be usable because they're Paizo IP. For anything being published under the OGL (not on Infinite), or resources/tools that are using the OGL to access the Starfinder rules, those race names (assuming they are indeed OGC as I'm inclined to think they are per my previous content) would continue to be OGC the same way that sahuagin are and will continue to be (though, just like sahuagin couldn't be ported over under that name into ORC content, these race names also couldn't be ported into ORC content until Paizo republished them under...

Yes people who want to make PF1 or SF1 content can No longer use Infinite that grants the use of proper names. The ORC can be used for using the game rules but not Golorian or Pact World proper names. People like Dyslexic Character sheets or Hephaistos previously were able to mix the CUP with the OGL or ORC but the new FCP doesn't work with the ORC or OGL because the FCP doesn't allow game content.

If you read Dyslexic Character Sheet(Don't know if this can be read without being a patron) or Hephaistos respones to why this effects so many people they explain it better than me since I don't make this content I just use a lot of it and all the makers agree that this is not usable including the example you gave.

I just don’t think the endless cycle of negativity is helping anyone when right now waiting is all you can do, but again, you do you, I’m just a stranger

I'd disagree. The continued expression of dissatisfaction underlines that this isn't an issue which will quietly go away.

"We'll think about it."

If the community lets Paizo get away with that statement and just... quiets down, it can easily turn into "we thought about it and well, don't feel like doing anything about it."

If the voices - and more importantly the word - continue to spread and speak and complain, the scope of the impact grows and continues. Paizo is doing this because Paizo wants to do this. Because this has been determined to be the most beneficial (read: profitable) path to them. Until they are disabused of that notion, nothing will change, and the only way that happens is if it's clear to them the profit-impact of this move outweighs the benefits to them.

Don't trust. What would've happened if everyone had trusted WotC to just... back down? Nope. It took sustained bad PR to trigger that move. And that is why I personally think this is all overblown. I just don't see WotC risking that happening again in the next decade or two when they know what will happen, and yet Paizo is urgently forcing license deprecation - committing a WotC - because WotC.

My groups were mulling over trying PF2 again once we run out of PF1 material we want to run but this event has us revisiting that. Because how Paizo behaves matters to us.

...

Also, add to that the fact that fans who wanted to share free Golarion-themed short adventures, quest ideas, additional side quests or variants for APs or modules, or other creations (a new wizard school, a new archetype, a new organization...) can no longer do that outside of Infinite (not just for PF1/SF1 but also for PF2/SF2).

Many (most ?) of them will simply decide not to produce/share anything, instead of having to go through all the trouble to rework and format their creations for Infinite. Or they might simply not feel like their creations is good enough for such a big official commercial site. Thus, a globally much poorer pool of shared creations and resources (since the CUP allowed for those free rpg products to be shared more easily, without having to wade through complex and intimidating legalese considerations).

I can attest that I'd been noodling a short series of write-ups of "overlooked" PC species for Starfinder, taking species who had simply been mentioned in passing and providing them with stats and lore on how they fit into the setting. An expansion of this post in the homebrew forum.

I've abandoned those plans entirely now and, as far as I can see, were I to offer up or update that forum post now, I would be in violation. Sad thing is that I'd been specifically waiting for the end of SF1 with the purposeful intent of not stepping on any creative toes.

Arita wrote:

I just don’t think the endless cycle of negativity is helping anyone when right now waiting is all you can do, but again, you do you, I’m just a stranger

I'd disagree. The continued expression of dissatisfaction underlines that this isn't an issue which will quietly go away.

Along what you said I brought the topic up with my group because some of them care about this stuff but don't have the time to research it and they don't use any social media but Facebook so this wouldn't come to them otherwise.

They both agree with me that the peeps at Paizo definitely want a good solution, however are also not trusting that the management, marketing and legal care at all and are ultimately leaving it up to me if they will continue to support Paizo based on the outcome. I bear most of the financial burden of buying all the rulebooks, adventures and Lost Omens, but they buy core books or books that have content directly relating to their character. Also one of my players also occasionally DM's and buys AP's that look cool.

Obviously we are only 6 people but if this discussion is happening at one table it is happening at others and maybe that won't be enough that Paizo will die but it can't be good.

And don't misconstrue this. It isn't a threat or call to action but at least me and my group are tired of being let down by these companies we loved both in ttrpg and video game and comics and other media constantly missing the mark that we would rather save our money and support someone who hasn't broken promises or try one of the 20 new games popping up in the wake of the ogl debacle. We just want to roll our funny rocks and play pretend without constantly worrying about the real world ethics of which brand we are supporting.

Just to add my voice here...

I had some ideas, and when i first the announcement made for PFI and SFI a while ago, I was telling myself "wow, they could let me do all that". Writing up my ideas that I propose in my games, I found this news and was shocked.

For PF1, my feeling is that you can go easily outside Golarion and be OGL Pathfinder Compatible, dwarves and elves and wizards are usable everywhere. It is not that clear for me if you can do the same thing for the classes and the ancestries of SF1. What I've seen of Starfinder compatible stuffs made limited use of the classes from the core rulebook if any.

I'm all familiar with risk analysis, and I understand the underlying problems and strategies pushing for a change. But prior discussions went to say that Starfinder was "safe", and SFI would allow to continue to allow to enjoy SF1...

But that announcement is a terrible timing for Starfinder. With all the energies put on making SF2, now would have been the time where many creators would have published fascinating stories for SFI that could be inserted in current games or allowed new ones, ensuring a great player base for now that would probably hop in numbers to SF2 when ready. Now we will enter the desert on September 1st...

So I do hope Paizo will have some better news for us soon.

So... we have waited for the gencon, we have waited the week after gencon, when do you think to address this mess?

Just checking in to see if we have ANY kind of news on these updates now that we're a week post GenCon.

Folks, talking to lawyers about revising language takes time.

Folks, talking to lawyers about revising language takes time.

Lawyers just want billable hours =P

Folks, talking to lawyers about revising language takes time.

Not making unwanted changes doesn't take talking to lawyers.

Yes, yes, I realize that's overly reductive but at the heart of it if they wanted to just not revoke CUP, they could by the simple act of saying so. Well. I mean... it would've been if they'd a} not said "effective immediately" and b} no, there is no 'b'.

I understand that patience is a virtue and now that Paizo's dug themselves into this hole it will take time to get out of it, but they could be more vocal about what, or really if anything even is going on behind the scenes. So far the last thing we've been told is "we'll think about it" and we simply have to take it on good faith that that's happening by now and is going well. In this situation, good faith is something they have to work for a little harder than initiating radio silence.

We also still don't have word on what their justification is for rolling out these changes in the unacceptable manner that they did, even though many, including myself and people much more diplomatic than me, have raised that question. That much shouldn't require any lawyerly consultations, should it? They've already done it and have been criticized for it. If there was a defensible reason for it you'd think they'd have given it by now.

Eh, responding will just stir up arguments over how much or how little the response says or is worth. People will just use it as evidence of 'it has been too long since the last update' or 'they could respond again, they did before' or 'they aren't being honest'. While also giving ammunition based on the content of the response, picking it apart for anything that can be interpreted in a preferred light.

Eh, responding will just stir up arguments over how much or how little the response says or is worth. People will just use it as evidence of 'it has been too long since the last update' or 'they could respond again, they did before' or 'they aren't being honest'. While also giving ammunition based on the content of the response, picking it apart for anything that can be interpreted in a preferred light.

You're not wrong... It's a real lose/lose situation they've placed themselves in.

Two questions from a PF1/SF1 grognard:

First, I have some organized play references I've made for Pathfinder 1e that exist on a website that may or may not be changing form. The website's made use of the CUP so far in a way that means I don't ever have to worry about what I'm doing so long as I'm not charging for it.

Since the site may be changing form significantly or migrating some of those references to another site for long-term archival storage, what happens? ... Is that really what's intended here?

We're going to be adding FAQ information to clarify what existing CUP sites that may need maintenance or other technical updates that don't fundamentally change the content or functionality need to do to be compliant with the FCP.

If I put those up on a website for everyone in my little home group to read, am I running afoul of the updated rules?

Home group play is covered under personal use and isn't really something this policy is intended to govern.

Hi if I want to start a website were people can share homebrew AP and onshots they have written with a possibility of selling them as long as the material is within the regulations with the licenses is that okay?

If they are using the Pathfinder and Starfinder settings or other material that isn't licensed via the OGL or ORC, then such APs and one-shots need to be released on Pathfinder or Starfinder Infinite. If they're using a different setting or no setting, then they can function as you describe under the OGL/ORC and (if you so choose) the Paizo Compatibility License.

But these policies are meant to apply to published content, not general discussion, so if it's a forum where people are just tossing around ideas for campaigns or homebrew material, that's not something we're interested in policing.

Do the international non english language people deserve the same service granted to english speaking user by aon?

There is a possibility to negotiate the same license granted to aon for international srd?

We want people to be able to play our games in whatever language they want, and if tools like Archives of Nethys in other languages would make that easier for people to do, we encourage that. As I've said before, we're reviewing our options in providing support for international communities.

Anyone can contact our licensing department and inquire about establishing a commercial license. See the "Commercial Licenses" section at the bottom of the Paizo Licenses page for more information on what we look for in commercial partners.

And, again, please be patient with us as we gather information to share, which includes more for international community projects that operated under the CUP.

If they are using the Pathfinder and Starfinder settings or other material that isn't licensed via the OGL or ORC, then such APs and one-shots need to be released on Pathfinder or Starfinder Infinite. If they're using a different setting or no setting, then they can function as you describe under the OGL/ORC and (if you so choose) the Paizo Compatibility License.

But these policies are meant to apply to published content, not general discussion, so if it's a forum where people are just tossing around ideas for campaigns or homebrew material, that's not something we're interested in policing.

Just pointing out again that this is a generally bad policy, both for the community AND for Paizo (that gets great benefit out of said community).

Stuff like this thread (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2i3wa?Community-Created-Stuff) is basically impossible with the new policies. These things shouldn't need to be on Infinite (at any price, even 0) to exist. Things like Tsuto's journal, or other updated/expanded handouts, or even the Chopper's Isle drop-in that so many people use in Chapter 1 to round-out Sandpoint.

Paizo has this hammer (Infinite) and is now treating literally everything as a nail to be smacked with said hammer.

I'm not sure how that thread is impossible now, as it isn't a collection of published content.

I'm not sure how that thread is impossible now, as it isn't a collection of published content.

It's obvious I mean the things in the thread, not the literal thread itself.

I don't see the things in that thread being against any policy.

I don't see the things in that thread being against any policy.

I already listed multiple examples. Let me direct link to one of them: Chopper's Isle

Ah, okay, so that one would have to be under the ORC license if I understand them right. Which could be untrue, I have no need of understanding the licenses.

Ah, okay, so that one would have to be under the ORC license if I understand them right. Which could be untrue, I have no need of understanding the licenses.

The ORC license would be usable if the document didn't reference any names from Golarion or the adventure.

As it is, under the new policy, it would have to be published on Pathfinder Infinite... which means that, most likely, it wouldn't be shared at all.

So I think that emky is right: the new policy means that such side quests, changes to AP and other ideas to add to the published modules would not be shared anymore.

Or just shared in spite of the policy. Guess we'll see if anyone tests Paizo's enforcement if there isn't a change.

Cori Marie wrote:

Again, folk *can* still make Starfinder 1E products, just not with Paizo proper names.

Sincerely: What the hell does that even mean? It's hard to appreciate how much of Starfinder is Paizo-owned proper nouns. I myself didn't get the full picture until I started reading the 2e playtest document. Can you still call the core race of warlike lizard aliens Vesks? Can you refer to a Solarian? What about other crucial game mechanics like Drift Engines?

"Vesk" and "solarian" are not proper nouns any more than "human" and "wizard" are. Both are available as Open Game Content under the OGL and now as Licensed Material under the ORC. "Drift" remains off-limits, because it's a place as much as Absalom Station is, but you can use "hyperspace" as a replacement, just as we provided as guidance in our OGL Product Identity declarations for the duration of Starfinder First Edition.

And "precog" is just as much Open Game Content as it ever was.

Or just shared in spite of the policy. Guess we'll see if anyone tests Paizo's enforcement if there isn't a change.

Can we please not?

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I don't see the things in that thread being against any policy.

I already listed multiple examples. Let me direct link to one of them: Chopper's Isle

Most of the links on that thread are dead, at least for the first few posts.

But the Chopper's Isle you linked to is fine, mostly.

First, it was released under the Community Use Policy, and we're not asking anyone to remove anything that was released under the policy even if new material can't be created under it.

But it does use some of Paizo's maps that weren't released into the Community Use Package, or which were but weren't allowed to be altered (like cropped) under the terms of the CUP.

It also doesn't seem to include the OGL anywhere, which it probably should since it's using game mechanics. But that's not Paizo's license to enforce.

At the end of the day, there's nothing in there that couldn't be made into a PDF and released on Pathfinder Infinite (before September 1, since it's using OGL material). They even have a "download PDF" button (though it's broken).

Sorry for fulfilling my own prophecy.

Eh, responding will just stir up arguments over how much or how little the response says or is worth. People will just use it as evidence of 'it has been too long since the last update' or 'they could respond again, they did before' or 'they aren't being honest'. While also giving ammunition based on the content of the response, picking it apart for anything that can be interpreted in a preferred light.

They need to discuss with their lawyer too, it takes time.

Contact lawyer with questions raised by community, lawyer say "we'll think about it / look it up and come back with an answer", [random amount of time counted in "business days"], finally get back, sometimes asking clarification, missing information, or raising more questions, thus needing a new loop from step one.
AND there was GenCon in the middle of it, adding more delays.

Very much this. Plus, many members of the team who went to Gen Con (including myself) came back with an unwelcome microbial stowaway that further delayed our ability to pick this back up immediately following the show.

Thanks to everyone for your patience. We are actively working on FAQ updates and a larger update that we will share as soon as we can.

But the Chopper's Isle you linked to is fine, mostly.

You said it's fine and then proceeded to describe how it's not at all fine at all.

I don't care about it then/past. I care about it *future*. Your new policies entirely prohibit such content. No more "expanding adventure paths". Part of the vibrancy of Paizo's APs (or at least the 1e ones; I don't really pay attention to 2e) is the huge community around making each AP as much as it can be, far more than what's in the book. (And of course the tools, but that's been discussed quite at length in this thread.)

I can attest that I'd been noodling a short series of write-ups of "overlooked" PC species for Starfinder, taking species who had simply been mentioned in passing and providing them with stats and lore on how they fit into the setting. An expansion of this post in the homebrew forum.

I've abandoned those plans entirely now and, as far as I can see, were I to offer up or update that forum post now, I would be in violation. Sad thing is that I'd been specifically waiting for the end of SF1 with the purposeful intent of not stepping on any creative toes.

A forum post is not a publication, and is not subject to these policies. We'll be adding a clarifying FAQ soon, as this is something I keep seeing here and on other discussion channels.

The Fan Content Policy (nor the Community Use Policy before it) really covered personal use or discussion of our IP. If you write something and share it in a discord or on a forum or a subreddit, that's all good.

Mark Moreland wrote:

But the Chopper's Isle you linked to is fine, mostly.

You said it's fine and then proceeded to describe how it's not at all fine at all.

It is 98% fine, hence the "mostly." It just needs to have the OGL added and swap out a map or two. But we're also not going to C&D a 15-year-old web post.

And this same type of content (with the mentioned changes) would be 100% fine going forward using the Infinite license (assuming it didn't require the OGL to be published).

So claiming that I said "it's not at all fine at all" is really stretching what I said.

There are a ton of AP expansions on Infinite now, and I'm sure there will continue to be in the future. And folks will continue to post their own suggestions and alterations in text on Reddit and the Paizo Forums and whatnot.

Mark, this series of posts seems to imply that there won’t be any large scale rollback or changes like everyone has been hoping for the past several weeks, and Paizo will continue with the current policy despite the horrific effect it has on fan projects of all kinds. Is that correct, and if so, why?

Just as a reminder, the PF2E foundry system was developed under CUP for years and those efforts lead to Foundry being a large amount of Paizo’s revenue. Had this policy been in place it would never have been created in the first place, and PF2E would have had its growth and current popularity greatly reduced.

Even though Foundry is now a commercial license, this policy kneecaps Paizo’s own future by pre-emptively killing any future project in the same vein. It’ll also lose you sales of previous edition books because in one stroke you’re destroying the 1E to 2E conversion community, which relies on OGL content and public collaboration that Infinite bans and does not facilitate respectively.

I’d also really like to see an explanation of why CUP was revoked with 0 days notice and no community feedback, as many posts in this thread have brought up how seemingly cruel that was and no explanation has ever been provided.

John Mangrum wrote:

I can attest that I'd been noodling a short series of write-ups of "overlooked" PC species for Starfinder, taking species who had simply been mentioned in passing and providing them with stats and lore on how they fit into the setting. An expansion of this post in the homebrew forum.

I've abandoned those plans entirely now and, as far as I can see, were I to offer up or update that forum post now, I would be in violation. Sad thing is that I'd been specifically waiting for the end of SF1 with the purposeful intent of not stepping on any creative toes.

A forum post is not a publication, and is not subject to these policies. We'll be adding a clarifying FAQ soon, as this is something I keep seeing here and on other discussion channels.

The Fan Content Policy (nor the Community Use Policy before it) really covered personal use or discussion of our IP. If you write something and share it in a discord or on a forum or a subreddit, that's all good.

Considering that most people (including myself) who are considering sharing free fan content can’t afford to consult an IP lawyer about this, I’d like to clearly ask: is what you just wrote legal advice on behalf of Paizo to its user base or a personal opinion separate from the policies and views of Paizo Inc?

Considering that most people (including myself) who are considering sharing free fan content can’t afford to consult an IP lawyer about this, I’d like to clearly ask: is what you just wrote legal advice on behalf of Paizo to its user base or a personal opinion separate from the policies and views of Paizo Inc?

None of what I write is legal advice. I am not a lawyer and you are not my client.

As I said, we will have an FAQ coming soon that will hopefully clarify this point.

Sheeesh, working late, eh, Mark? Glad that the FAQ is coming up soon, should clear up where things stand for everyone, especially in regards to the fanmade tools— it does indeed sound like the decision is final, but that doesn’t sound surprising to me, I didn’t really expect that to change much, given everything. Also glad to hear that stuff like ancestry names for Starfinder are not considered to be out of limits

Sheeesh, working late, eh, Mark?

Is midnight late?

Arita wrote:

Sheeesh, working late, eh, Mark?

Is midnight late?

I guess depends on the job! But I’d generally say midnight is a pretty late time to be working! But hey, it’s appreciated!

I work swing, so midnight is kind of my bedtime unless we’re staying up late with shows.