Sorry if I'm posting this in the wrong place... I couldn't find a more specific forum where I was sure this fit, so I figured I'd just post it in General.
Anyway, I just wanted to ask the Paizo Powers That Be whether it was OK to reference Harrow decks in products released under the Compatibility License. The Harrow deck is described in Pathfinder Adventure Path #7: Edge of Anarchy, which uses the Open Game License, designating as product identity "proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, language, concepts, incidents, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress." The Harrow deck isn't an artifact, a character, or any of the other things specifically named; it's just a regular item, not even magical. However, the main thing that leads me to wonder is the fact that "Harrow" is capitalized--does that mean "Harrow deck" is regarded as a proper noun, and thus out of bounds for compatible products? (Or would it be regarded as a "concept" and thus out of bounds for that reason?)
OK, tl;dr version: Is it okay to include a Harrow deck reading in a product published under the Compatibility License?
Since the Harrow Deck and the Harrower prestige class have been updated to PRPG rules in the Inner Sea World Guide, my guess would be no.
Since the Harrow Deck and the Harrower prestige class have been updated to PRPG rules in the Inner Sea World Guide, my guess would be no.
But what was done with the Harrow deck in later books has no bearing whatsoever on whether it was OGC in Edge of Anarchy. Once something is released as OGC, it can't be taken back; OGC is OGC forever. Nor is there anything in the Compatibility License that forbids or restricts the usage of older content -- as long as it's Open Game Content, it's fair game. Even if the rules updates in the Inner Sea World Guide are Product Identity, that doesn't make the Harrow deck's original description retroactively Product Identity too -- the Open Gaming License doesn't work that way. All it would mean (assuming the description in Edge of Anarchy is Open Content) is that I couldn't refer to any updated rules from the Inner Sea World Guide -- I'd still be able to refer to the original description. (And for what I have in mind, I wouldn't need the updated rules anyway -- I'm not interested in using the Harrower prestige class or anything else outside of what's in Edge of Anarchy.)
Besides, it's not clear that the version presented in the Inner Sea World Guide is Product Identity, either. The Inner Sea World Guide, too, is published under the Open Gaming License. And its designation of Product Identity is similar (though not identical) to that in Edge of Anarchy: "All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress. (Elements that have previously been designated as Open Game Content or are in the public domain are not included in this declaration.)" So I could have asked the same question about the Inner Sea World Guide, really. (Although that case is a bit stickier, in that, while Edge of Anarchy explicitly says that all content that isn't Product Identity is Open Content, the Inner Sea World Guide merely states that the game mechanics are Open Content, leaving the status of material that is neither game mechanics nor one of the categories stated as Product Identity somewhat undefined. The safer assumption is that if it's not listed as Open Content, it's probably Product Identity -- but note that the Inner Sea World Guide explicitly says that anything that has "previously been designated as Open Game Content" is not Product Identity (though legally, this would still be true even if it wasn't explicitly stated).)
So my question stands, as to whether the Harrow deck as presented in Edge of Anarchy is Open Content. (Whether the updated rules in the Inner Sea World Guide are Open Content is a separate question, and not one that matters to me for my immediate purposes.) Unfortunately, my guess is that it may very well not be, for the reasons I mentioned above (because it may count as a proper name or as a "concept"), but I figured I might as well ask.