|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not every archetype/feat/PrC was designed with PCs in mind. This PrC in particular, actually called Razmiran Priest (with name changed by d20pfsrd) was designed for a faction that's pretty much universally antagonists in the Golarion setting.
The "god" you are refering is originally the false god Razmir. The PrC makes little sense when the Golarion flavour is cut out but hey, that didn't stop d20pfsrd from listing it. You can find the original PrC, with no lore elements cut away, here.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Technicality: this issue has nothing to do with OGL (OGL itself covers only open content, which setting stuff is not). It's the Paizo Community Use License that allows you to use proper given names from the Golarion setting ... as long as your website (in this case) is non-commercial, which Archives of Nethys are and d20pfsrd isn't.
|
Technicality: this issue has nothing to do with OGL (OGL itself covers only open content, which setting stuff is not). It's the Paizo Community Use License that allows you to use proper given names from the Golarion setting ... as long as your website (in this case) is non-commercial, which Archives of Nethys are and d20pfsrd isn't.
Didn't claim OGL, I claimed OGC. The there is a big difference, but you already knew that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you said that OGL requires you not to use IP - *technically* it's not quite exactly that, because open content is still somebody's IP. Wizards of the Coast still *owns* flumphs, it's just that you can use them without their permission as long as you follow the OGL, because the name went open content.
If Razmir was open content, he would still be Paizo's property. He's not, but there's the Community license ... meaning some can use him, some can't.
|
|
As an aside... what is the difference between OGC and OGL? I'm pretty sure OGL is the Open Gaming License, but not sure what OGC is.
OGC means Open Game Content. Generally Paizo designates all of its intellectual property as being "closed content", and the rest to be open content. There have been subtle shift over the years, but for the most part I believe this to be true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... meaning some can use him, some can't.>.>
Um that's not how the Community licence works. You meet the obligations or you don't. The licence doesn't specify who can or cannot use content, just the methodology of how to content.
It’s prohibited to use the CUP if you’re a commercial user or if Paizo considers you to be in the publishing business.
I think that’s what Gorbacz was referring to. Archives of Nethys is run by a fan, D20PFSRD can no longer use the CUP - even if they set up another site to do so. They are now a commercial user, irrespective of the content of any specific prospective publication.
|
|
... meaning some can use him, some can't.>.>
Um that's not how the Community licence works. You meet the obligations or you don't. The licence doesn't specify who can or cannot use content, just the methodology of how to content.
It’s prohibited to use the CUP if you’re a commercial user or if Paizo considers you to be in the publishing business.
I think that’s what Gorbacz was referring to. Archives of Nethys is run by a fan, D20PFSRD can no longer use the CUP - even if they set up another site to do so. They are now a commercial user, irrespective of the content of any specific prospective publication.
I understand that what he was trying to say, but it's important to be factual.
I don’t understand the distinction you’re making. It seems to me that it’s correct to say the CUP does specify who can use certain content and who can’t (in addition to spelling out obligations you have if you wish to do so).
It seems to me that that clause is important precisely for that reason - your eligibility to use some of Paizo’s IP is not just about the product you’re producing but also about who you are. I can produce an adventure under the CUP even though Legendary Games would be prohibited from producing the exact same text.
That would definitely help. The OP’s confusion is entirely understandable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's not real! Damn! And I was on the sixth step!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He's not real! Damn! And I was on the sixth step!!
It’s okay. That’s part of the sixth step.
The seventh step is realizing that Razmir was in your heart the whole time.
|
|
I don’t understand the distinction you’re making. It seems to me that it’s correct to say the CUP does specify who can use certain content and who can’t (in addition to spelling out obligations you have if you wish to do so).
It seems to me that that clause is important precisely for that reason - your eligibility to use some of Paizo’s IP is not just about the product you’re producing but also about who you are. I can produce an adventure under the CUP even though Legendary Games would be prohibited from producing the exact same text.
There are some legality issues that if you would like to discuss offline, I would be more than happy to discuss. But suffice it to say, there are legal issues that you blurring with your statement and are misleading.
Further more I would suggest that anyone who is reading this post find legal representation to review the CUP if they intend to publish in this fashion, this venue is simply this discussion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's not real! Damn! And I was on the sixth step!!It’s okay. That’s part of the sixth step.
The seventh step is realizing that Razmir was in your heart the whole time.
Really?! I gotta fire my cardiologist...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really?! I gotta fire my cardiologist...He's not real! Damn! And I was on the sixth step!!It’s okay. That’s part of the sixth step.
The seventh step is realizing that Razmir was in your heart the whole time.
19th-level wizards can do some crazy stuff, yo.
Not every archetype/feat/PrC was designed with PCs in mind. This PrC in particular, actually called Razmiran Priest (with name changed by d20pfsrd) was designed for a faction that's pretty much universally antagonists in the Golarion setting.
The "god" you are refering is originally the false god Razmir. The PrC makes little sense when the Golarion flavour is cut out but hey, that didn't stop d20pfsrd from listing it. You can find the original PrC, with no lore elements cut away, here.
Im pretty sure razmiran priest is the "alternate" name of the sorcerer archetype (which is broken), not the prestige class (which is horrible)
It's the name of both. Unique and distinct names are not a feature of Pathfinder. IIRC there are three swashbucklers, two evangelists and two different 'pact wizard' archetypes of the wizard class.