So, for all their touting of the "virtuous circle" that the ORC was going to produce, when the rubber meets the road and dollars are on the line, Paizo has banned the use of the ORC license in association with Pathfinder Infinite and Starfinder Infinite.
This video covers it in more detail...
Hairdye, medication, and buckets of doughnuts and unhealthy snacks aren't cheap, those paizo piggies gotta keep themselves fed!
Looking at Paizo's press release, they're offering a separate license for PF/SF Infinite as opposed to ORC. Not sure why.
It would help if I knew what the hell PF/SF Infinite was. This may require a little research.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 16, 2023, 09:10:46 AM
Looking at Paizo's press release, they're offering a separate license for PF/SF Infinite as opposed to ORC. Not sure why.
It would help if I knew what the hell PF/SF Infinite was. This may require a little research.
Short version is that Infinite is Paizo's personal walled garden akin to Storyteller's Vault for WW and what WotC is hoping to make OneD&D into.
How it differs from Archives of Nethys?
I knew ORC was a lie from the outset.
And honestly it is unneeded unless you honestly plan on making supplements for games under, which that seems to be bunk as well.
Creative Commons is for based people.
If it was me, we should go Linux for Fantasy RPG's. Get together a project leader and ask people to donate their time for free building up a rules system for a PHB, DMG and Monster Manual, all of which is free to use online while building a free to use D&D Clone. Sell paper versions of the rules and a subscription based D&D clone that offers combat tracker, built in VTT, ability to link to discord for Foundry, Fantasy Grounds and Owlbear etc. Have a market place where modules and custom unofficial content can be sold. All core books go through the committee for release.
Does it sound commie, a bit commie, but we got linux through a project lead and people working together. We could create a good thing to sell digitally, play digitally and built digitally. We could use the rules on TTRPG just the same as well by selling paper books at a premium. When I'm playing at the table, I use digital for my monsters, its faster to search than pen through a book or having to write down the monster stats.
"WOTC sucks, so do business with us instead!!!"
"Oh wait, apparently we suck too?"
Nevermind....
From what I understand, it's like how you can use ORC for setting neutral stuff, but if you want to use their IP like Golarion you need to do a stricter license, kind of like WOTC and DM's Guild letting you use Forgotten Realms but with strings attached. That makes sense to me.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic on November 17, 2023, 03:25:41 AM
From what I understand, it's like how you can use ORC for setting neutral stuff, but if you want to use their IP like Golarion you need to do a stricter license, kind of like WOTC and DM's Guild letting you use Forgotten Realms but with strings attached. That makes sense to me.
This. From my understanding, this is little different to our TAS programme for Traveller on Drivethru. Rules are one thing, but setting IP is the key to the kingdom and you cannot just give it away without properly spannering yourself. It would be like Disney giving away Star Wars.
It looks like they are dong something similar to what we intend, whereby you have a 'controlled' licence that lets people publish (and sell) material for the official setting (TAS for us), and something far looser and less restrictive for mechanics alone (which we are working on now for Traveller, probably not going ORC).
Makes absolute sense, really no hypocrisy here...
Don't care... I hate Paizo anyway.
But this move doesn't surprise me at all.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on November 16, 2023, 10:00:32 PM
If it was me, we should go Linux for Fantasy RPG's. Get together a project leader and ask people to donate their time for free building up a rules system for a PHB, DMG and Monster Manual, all of which is free to use online while building a free to use D&D Clone. Sell paper versions of the rules and a subscription based D&D clone that offers combat tracker, built in VTT, ability to link to discord for Foundry, Fantasy Grounds and Owlbear etc. Have a market place where modules and custom unofficial content can be sold. All core books go through the committee for release.
Does it sound commie, a bit commie, but we got linux through a project lead and people working together. We could create a good thing to sell digitally, play digitally and built digitally. We could use the rules on TTRPG just the same as well by selling paper books at a premium. When I'm playing at the table, I use digital for my monsters, its faster to search than pen through a book or having to write down the monster stats.
As a libertarian rational anarchist anti-authoritarian, I have absolutely no problem with
voluntary parallel collectivism. (Remember kids, if the first step to utopia is mass murder, it's a hate cult and not a good system for governance.) If there were enough people that wanted to do this kind of system, I'm down.
That said, Cepheus Engine exists and is basically doing this. The SRD is free to use any way you see fit and several others have opened up at least part of their derivatives for free use. Interlock Unlimited is completely free to use (and a complete rules set.) OSR Basic/Expert is also completely free. While we are at it, the 5e SRD is now Creative Commons.
It's also worth noting that you cannot copyright or patent game mechanics. There have been multiple court cases that establish this ans precedence law in the US and abroad.
QuoteFrom what I understand, it's like how you can use ORC for setting neutral stuff, but if you want to use their IP like Golarion you need to do a stricter license, kind of like WOTC and DM's Guild letting you use Forgotten Realms but with strings attached. That makes sense to me.
So the setting specific things are not included in ORC, rest is fine? Am I correct.
If that's it then I'm not sure why Chris scorns them - that's about philosophy he wanted for Ruins and Realms I thought - use it, but not specific setting of book?
As someone who has bought all the Pathfinder 1E books, mostly because it is essentially D&D 3.5 edition which they kept alive after WOTC brainfarted and created D&D 4E, I did notice the occasional lesbian relationship / other liberal promotion here and there sadly.
My Kingmaker adventure Path (the original, where you still had the option to be an evil slaver) had a promotion for it on its back side: "3.5 edition survives thrives!", and for around 10 years it did exactly that: It thrived as 3.5 was being kept alive by Paizo, and now I'm part of a group where the DM bought all the Pathfinder books and simply doesn't want to buy new ones and is ore than happy with this 3.5 system.
As such, I don't care what happens to Paizo either, and I am disappointed that they groveled to the perpetually 24/7 offended, but at the very least they still created some pretty great 3.5 content for which I will always be thankful.
I just hope that they didn't add too much woke BS. I am currently playing Giantslayer with my group, which was from 2015, and aside from the lesbian dwarf/orc relationship (degeneracy on two accounts!) and the occasional female leader, it seems pretty non-woke to me. We have a fat overweight and ugly hill giant woman who keeps proposing to this giant king, and was rejected and now cries about it in her diary we just found, and we have giants literally killing people and a bunch of orcs pitting a captured dwarf ranger (equipped with only a mithryl frying pan) against several bears (the dwarf being our companion, who was able to score a critical hit with his frying pan against one of the charging bears, to the point that one of the other bears got tamed by him and his skill rolls, which was awesome!), so plenty of animal cruelty and making fun of fat women, so not that much woke stuff so far aside from the occasional hot lesbian couple.
I just hope that it stays that way, and that not too many of my books (up until 2017-2018 I believe) have that nonsense put into them.
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 17, 2023, 07:39:30 AM
As someone who has bought all the Pathfinder 1E books, mostly because it is essentially D&D 3.5 edition which they kept alive after WOTC brainfarted and created D&D 4E, I did notice the occasional lesbian relationship / other liberal promotion here and there sadly.
My Kingmaker adventure Path (the original, where you still had the option to be an evil slaver) had a promotion for it on its back side: "3.5 edition survives thrives!", and for around 10 years it did exactly that: It thrived as 3.5 was being kept alive by Paizo, and now I'm part of a group where the DM bought all the Pathfinder books and simply doesn't want to buy new ones and is ore than happy with this 3.5 system.
As such, I don't care what happens to Paizo either, and I am disappointed that they groveled to the perpetually 24/7 offended, but at the very least they still created some pretty great 3.5 content for which I will always be thankful.
I just hope that they didn't add too much woke BS. I am currently playing Giantslayer with my group, which was from 2015, and aside from the lesbian dwarf/orc relationship (degeneracy on two accounts!) and the occasional female leader, it seems pretty non-woke to me. We have a fat overweight and ugly hill giant woman who keeps proposing to this giant king, and was rejected and now cries about it in her diary we just found, and we have giants literally killing people and a bunch of orcs pitting a captured dwarf ranger (equipped with only a mithryl frying pan) against several bears (the dwarf being our companion, who was able to score a critical hit with his frying pan against one of the charging bears, to the point that one of the other bears got tamed by him and his skill rolls, which was awesome!), so plenty of animal cruelty and making fun of fat women, so not that much woke stuff so far aside from the occasional hot lesbian couple.
I just hope that it stays that way, and that not too many of my books (up until 2017-2018 I believe) have that nonsense put into them.
Change the module to pull out the degenerancy.
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on November 17, 2023, 07:49:15 AM
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 17, 2023, 07:39:30 AM
As someone who has bought all the Pathfinder 1E books, mostly because it is essentially D&D 3.5 edition which they kept alive after WOTC brainfarted and created D&D 4E, I did notice the occasional lesbian relationship / other liberal promotion here and there sadly.
My Kingmaker adventure Path (the original, where you still had the option to be an evil slaver) had a promotion for it on its back side: "3.5 edition survives thrives!", and for around 10 years it did exactly that: It thrived as 3.5 was being kept alive by Paizo, and now I'm part of a group where the DM bought all the Pathfinder books and simply doesn't want to buy new ones and is ore than happy with this 3.5 system.
As such, I don't care what happens to Paizo either, and I am disappointed that they groveled to the perpetually 24/7 offended, but at the very least they still created some pretty great 3.5 content for which I will always be thankful.
I just hope that they didn't add too much woke BS. I am currently playing Giantslayer with my group, which was from 2015, and aside from the lesbian dwarf/orc relationship (degeneracy on two accounts!) and the occasional female leader, it seems pretty non-woke to me. We have a fat overweight and ugly hill giant woman who keeps proposing to this giant king, and was rejected and now cries about it in her diary we just found, and we have giants literally killing people and a bunch of orcs pitting a captured dwarf ranger (equipped with only a mithryl frying pan) against several bears (the dwarf being our companion, who was able to score a critical hit with his frying pan against one of the charging bears, to the point that one of the other bears got tamed by him and his skill rolls, which was awesome!), so plenty of animal cruelty and making fun of fat women, so not that much woke stuff so far aside from the occasional hot lesbian couple.
I just hope that it stays that way, and that not too many of my books (up until 2017-2018 I believe) have that nonsense put into them.
Change the module to pull out the degenerancy.
Change the module?
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 17, 2023, 07:37:12 AM
QuoteFrom what I understand, it's like how you can use ORC for setting neutral stuff, but if you want to use their IP like Golarion you need to do a stricter license, kind of like WOTC and DM's Guild letting you use Forgotten Realms but with strings attached. That makes sense to me.
So the setting specific things are not included in ORC, rest is fine? Am I correct.
If that's it then I'm not sure why Chris scorns them - that's about philosophy he wanted for Ruins and Realms I thought - use it, but not specific setting of book?
The difference is if you make something using the Infinite license you can't take the non-Goleron material (ex. you create a new spell) and later release that spell under the ORC (or via the OGL).
My plan was just standard copyright, a guide on fair use of material (what can be used without issue... ex. mechanics), and a "if you want to use more just ask me... if you're creating something in tune with traditional western values I'll probably even let you use the logos and trade dress instead of just an indication of compatibility that fair use would allow."
I would have no right to say "You are prohibited from reusing anything you created yourself in a book I let you use the logo for even if you've stripped out every bit of my IP from it before doing so."
It's more the hypocrisy of "we want people to use this license that requires them to make all their downstream material open source to ensure a 'virtuous circle'" but when it's their own money it'd be costing them they refuse to let anything out of their walled garden... even if they didn't create it (and the item makes no reference to their protected IP).
A lot of the OGL and now ORC stuff is highlighting that a lot of voices for Open Source are so only when it gives them access to other peoples' stuff. As soon as it's them having to provide the stuff they want a walled garden to ensure no one touches their stuff.
It's one thing to say "I'm protecting my copyright and everyone else should too" and another to say "you must Copy Left for my benefit, but I am justified to keep enforcing my copyright."
Quote from: Chris24601 on November 17, 2023, 12:00:11 PM
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 17, 2023, 07:37:12 AM
QuoteFrom what I understand, it's like how you can use ORC for setting neutral stuff, but if you want to use their IP like Golarion you need to do a stricter license, kind of like WOTC and DM's Guild letting you use Forgotten Realms but with strings attached. That makes sense to me.
So the setting specific things are not included in ORC, rest is fine? Am I correct.
If that's it then I'm not sure why Chris scorns them - that's about philosophy he wanted for Ruins and Realms I thought - use it, but not specific setting of book?
The difference is if you make something using the Infinite license you can't take the non-Goleron material (ex. you create a new spell) and later release that spell under the ORC (or via the OGL).
My plan was just standard copyright, a guide on fair use of material (what can be used without issue... ex. mechanics), and a "if you want to use more just ask me... if you're creating something in tune with traditional western values I'll probably even let you use the logos and trade dress instead of just an indication of compatibility that fair use would allow."
I would have no right to say "You are prohibited from reusing anything you created yourself in a book I let you use the logo for even if you've stripped out every bit of my IP from it before doing so."
It's more the hypocrisy of "we want people to use this license that requires them to make all their downstream material open source to ensure a 'virtuous circle'" but when it's their own money it'd be costing them they refuse to let anything out of their walled garden... even if they didn't create it (and the item makes no reference to their protected IP).
A lot of the OGL and now ORC stuff is highlighting that a lot of voices for Open Source are so only when it gives them access to other peoples' stuff. As soon as it's them having to provide the stuff they want a walled garden to ensure no one touches their stuff.
It's one thing to say "I'm protecting my copyright and everyone else should too" and another to say "you must Copy Left for my benefit, but I am justified to keep enforcing my copyright."
I'm sure somewhere in there you meant "RedHat". LOL
So Paizo is opening most of their own work under Orc (aside of setting specific) but not amateur works of Infinity users that is basically minor 3pp for PF?
Do I get it right?
Shit in that case, I'd first publish every single such spell or monster under ORC as Pathfinder compatible, and then use it in Infinity... this way I doubt they can really twist it against you.
But that's really ludicrous - are those Infinity specific resources that massive or valuable to keep them closed if all massive system is in open?
Quote from: BadApple on November 17, 2023, 07:26:31 AM
Quote from: honeydipperdavid on November 16, 2023, 10:00:32 PM
If it was me, we should go Linux for Fantasy RPG's. Get together a project leader and ask people to donate their time for free building up a rules system for a PHB, DMG and Monster Manual, all of which is free to use online while building a free to use D&D Clone. Sell paper versions of the rules and a subscription based D&D clone that offers combat tracker, built in VTT, ability to link to discord for Foundry, Fantasy Grounds and Owlbear etc. Have a market place where modules and custom unofficial content can be sold. All core books go through the committee for release.
Does it sound commie, a bit commie, but we got linux through a project lead and people working together. We could create a good thing to sell digitally, play digitally and built digitally. We could use the rules on TTRPG just the same as well by selling paper books at a premium. When I'm playing at the table, I use digital for my monsters, its faster to search than pen through a book or having to write down the monster stats.
As a libertarian rational anarchist anti-authoritarian, I have absolutely no problem with voluntary parallel collectivism. (Remember kids, if the first step to utopia is mass murder, it's a hate cult and not a good system for governance.) If there were enough people that wanted to do this kind of system, I'm down.
That said, Cepheus Engine exists and is basically doing this. The SRD is free to use any way you see fit and several others have opened up at least part of their derivatives for free use. Interlock Unlimited is completely free to use (and a complete rules set.) OSR Basic/Expert is also completely free. While we are at it, the 5e SRD is now Creative Commons.
It's also worth noting that you cannot copyright or patent game mechanics. There have been multiple court cases that establish this ans precedence law in the US and abroad.
Unless I'm mistaken this is what I propossed back when the OGL fiasco.
With all due respect to Traveler, Interlock, etc, they aren't the big fish in the pond.
Now, about using 5e, yes, it's CC By but it would contribute to WotCs network effect (since you do have to give them credit).
So a Free SRD (free as in freedom not neccesarily as in beer) would be a good idea IMHO, put it under CC and let people go wild.
Yes, the mechanics can't be trademarked, copyrighted or patented but their descriptions? So that's the first step. Make it sorta 5e compatible while fixing some of the idiocy (like dying being really hard and very easy to return from).
Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 17, 2023, 12:35:24 PM
Unless I'm mistaken this is what I propossed back when the OGL fiasco.
With all due respect to Traveler, Interlock, etc, they aren't the big fish in the pond.
Now, about using 5e, yes, it's CC By but it would contribute to WotCs network effect (since you do have to give them credit).
So a Free SRD (free as in freedom not neccesarily as in beer) would be a good idea IMHO, put it under CC and let people go wild.
Yes, the mechanics can't be trademarked, copyrighted or patented but their descriptions? So that's the first step. Make it sorta 5e compatible while fixing some of the idiocy (like dying being really hard and very easy to return from).
WOTC and 5e are over half of the hobby alone. Paizo is the next biggest segment. That makes everything else small fry. Everything.
I don't think there's a perfect system to be had and I don't think the solution is to make a "5e killer." Instead, we need to be pushing more of the open SRD core games out there and making our own games are open SRD. It would be nice if there were some form of umbrella clearing house for people to explore systems before committing to them. 3e and 5e success has shown that allowing third party publishers to make compatible material for your game actually increases the value of the core product. The success of Cepheus Engine is proof you don't have to be an 800lbs. gorilla to see this work.
While some what tangential to the issue at hand, the broad issues of corporations pushing trash and trying to control the hobby has led me to making a series of game reviews. At least people can get a second opinion about a product before sending money on an unknown.
In this instance I'm not seeing the problem, as it looks like they're proposing a more restrictive license for products that are being allowed to use their setting instead of just the system. Pretty much nobody has put out anything providing carte blanche for people to use their setting, this isn't abnormal. I've seen several companies provide ways for indie makers to license their IP and put out their own product for a setting, but obviously they want some degree of control so you don't get Volo's Guide to Murdering Babies in Waterdeep on the shelves.
That said, I'm too lazy to actually have read their proposed agreement. If they put some legal fuckery in there that's trying to sneak away all of someone's rights or money, then yes, that's bad.
I know Macris said he was not going to be using ORC, because any tables in your work become open. And most of his book is tables that took lots of time and research to generate.
Pathfinder/Starfinder Infinite allows you to publish content based on Golarion, you can use their setting, but you have to publish on DTRPG.
ORC allows you to use the Pathfinder/Starfinder rules to publish whatever you want, wherever you want, but you use your own setting material.
They're two completely different things.
Greyhair just hates the idea of Copyleft licenses in general, he's been against the ORC from the beginning because of that.
Quote from: Tod13 on November 17, 2023, 02:56:48 PM
I know Macris said he was not going to be using ORC, because any tables in your work become open. And most of his book is tables that took lots of time and research to generate.
That makes sense, ACKS adds a metric fuckton of rules, all of which would be Open Content if he used ORC. He's not adding a few spells or a Class here and there, they are significant subsystems.
Quote from: crkrueger on November 17, 2023, 05:18:12 PM
Quote from: Tod13 on November 17, 2023, 02:56:48 PM
I know Macris said he was not going to be using ORC, because any tables in your work become open. And most of his book is tables that took lots of time and research to generate.
That makes sense, ACKS adds a metric fuckton of rules, all of which would be Open Content if he used ORC. He's not adding a few spells or a Class here and there, they are significant subsystems.
That was my question in his RandomWorlds Discord Q&A
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 17, 2023, 07:39:30 AM
I just hope that they didn't add too much woke BS. I am currently playing Giantslayer with my group, which was from 2015, and aside from the lesbian dwarf/orc relationship (degeneracy on two accounts!) and the occasional female leader, it seems pretty non-woke to me. We have a fat overweight and ugly hill giant woman who keeps proposing to this giant king, and was rejected and now cries about it in her diary we just found, and we have giants literally killing people and a bunch of orcs pitting a captured dwarf ranger (equipped with only a mithryl frying pan) against several bears (the dwarf being our companion, who was able to score a critical hit with his frying pan against one of the charging bears, to the point that one of the other bears got tamed by him and his skill rolls, which was awesome!), so plenty of animal cruelty and making fun of fat women, so not that much woke stuff so far aside from the occasional hot lesbian couple.
I just hope that it stays that way, and that not too many of my books (up until 2017-2018 I believe) have that nonsense put into them.
Paizo is about five years ahead of WotC for woke. Pathfinder products steadily ramp up the rainbow mafia token inclusion, because James Jacobs has to have a character in each book who is trans, so that his fellow Seattle residents can tell him what a good ally he is for queer inclusion.
I haven't read Giantslayer, but I'm betting that either the dwarf or the orc was born a man, but then found a girdle of opposite gender that turned him into the lesbian he always was deep down inside. You see, while it isn't something the PCs will ever have any reason to learn about a random NPC, it's totally something that has to be written into the books so that the reader can know there's representation happening in Paizo products.
Also it's kind of impossible to ignore how many of the major world leaders in Golarion are women. This actually gets started as early as 2008. The Paizo staff have been very concerned with making sure that Golarion isn't perpetuating patriarchy. They become increasingly concerned about male gaze as time goes by, too.
By 2015, Pathfinder has become woke as shit, it just doesn't seem that way now because they've been steadily turning up the dial.
QuotePathfinder/Starfinder Infinite allows you to publish content based on Golarion, you can use their setting, but you have to publish on DTRPG.
ORC allows you to use the Pathfinder/Starfinder rules to publish whatever you want, wherever you want, but you use your own setting material.
So Infinite 3pp is more like fanfiction - rooted in setting though not official.
If that's correct then I'm gonna say I think Christ accusation was missing the mark. That's perfectly normal to protect world lore. Especially one you are still using for producing.
QuoteGreyhair just hates the idea of Copyleft licenses in general, he's been against the ORC from the beginning because of that.
Greyhair is Macris?
QuoteThat makes sense, ACKS adds a metric fuckton of rules, all of which would be Open Content if he used ORC. He's not adding a few spells or a Class here and there, they are significant subsystems.
On the other hand IIRC he cannot really copyright mechanics so with bit of smarts people can make ACKS clones anyway.
QuotePaizo is about five years ahead of WotC for woke. Pathfinder products steadily ramp up the rainbow mafia token inclusion, because James Jacobs has to have a character in each book who is trans, so that his fellow Seattle residents can tell him what a good ally he is for queer inclusion.
Difference I think is that PAIZO stuff was always woke as shit, they probably started bit more cautious about going full monty, and probably adjusted some things with changing revolutionary norms. But it never felt like massive cynical overhaul of corporate buerocrates to pander to some crowd.
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 18, 2023, 07:27:41 AM
QuoteGreyhair just hates the idea of Copyleft licenses in general, he's been against the ORC from the beginning because of that.
Greyhair is Macris?
No. Two different conversations. I believe Grayhair is the person who did the original video. It sounds like this person does not like licenses that require the same license in derivative works AKA copyleft.
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 18, 2023, 07:27:41 AM
QuoteThat makes sense, ACKS adds a metric fuckton of rules, all of which would be Open Content if he used ORC. He's not adding a few spells or a Class here and there, they are significant subsystems.
On the other hand IIRC he cannot really copyright mechanics so with bit of smarts people can make ACKS clones anyway.
Mechanics is not tables. ORC simply makes it clear that any sort of table is also part of the open content. And tables are a big portion of ACKS's IP.
Quote from: Corolinth on November 17, 2023, 06:49:20 PM
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 17, 2023, 07:39:30 AM
I just hope that they didn't add too much woke BS. I am currently playing Giantslayer with my group, which was from 2015, and aside from the lesbian dwarf/orc relationship (degeneracy on two accounts!) and the occasional female leader, it seems pretty non-woke to me. We have a fat overweight and ugly hill giant woman who keeps proposing to this giant king, and was rejected and now cries about it in her diary we just found, and we have giants literally killing people and a bunch of orcs pitting a captured dwarf ranger (equipped with only a mithryl frying pan) against several bears (the dwarf being our companion, who was able to score a critical hit with his frying pan against one of the charging bears, to the point that one of the other bears got tamed by him and his skill rolls, which was awesome!), so plenty of animal cruelty and making fun of fat women, so not that much woke stuff so far aside from the occasional hot lesbian couple.
I just hope that it stays that way, and that not too many of my books (up until 2017-2018 I believe) have that nonsense put into them.
Paizo is about five years ahead of WotC for woke. Pathfinder products steadily ramp up the rainbow mafia token inclusion, because James Jacobs has to have a character in each book who is trans, so that his fellow Seattle residents can tell him what a good ally he is for queer inclusion.
I haven't read Giantslayer, but I'm betting that either the dwarf or the orc was born a man, but then found a girdle of opposite gender that turned him into the lesbian he always was deep down inside. You see, while it isn't something the PCs will ever have any reason to learn about a random NPC, it's totally something that has to be written into the books so that the reader can know there's representation happening in Paizo products.
Also it's kind of impossible to ignore how many of the major world leaders in Golarion are women. This actually gets started as early as 2008. The Paizo staff have been very concerned with making sure that Golarion isn't perpetuating patriarchy. They become increasingly concerned about male gaze as time goes by, too.
By 2015, Pathfinder has become woke as shit, it just doesn't seem that way now because they've been steadily turning up the dial.
The Pathfinder Wokeness is *Vastly* Overstated. Yes, it's there.... but it's easily ignorable. Wizard's of the Coast has seemed like they were specifically going out of their way to OUT woke Pathfinder.
But as I converted to Pathfinder over 5e when this fiasco started earlier this year, I've been reading a lot of Pathfinder products. The do traditional Adventures where Heroes go and save the world/area from evil things. It's just yes, occasionally an NPC will be noted as gay.
But if you want quality very GAMEABLE products that could potentially attract new players with WotC production values... Paizo is the way to go.
QuoteThe Pathfinder Wokeness is *Vastly* Overstated. Yes, it's there.... but it's easily ignorable. Wizard's of the Coast has seemed like they were specifically going out of their way to OUT woke Pathfinder.
I don't think so. Official HASBRO productions are not even close in woke, progressive content compared to Golarion. Difference is that PAIZO were simply progressive from the start, just getting more bold - so it does not stick as sore thumb. Even reading older Pathfinder material it's quite close. And yeah that's also in classic fantasy paradigm.
WOTC sticks as fake and ghey way more even though they made less clearly woke material, because they are obviously fake corporate hacks to the bone. There is not one honest bone in their whole creative crew.
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 18, 2023, 04:12:51 PM
QuoteThe Pathfinder Wokeness is *Vastly* Overstated. Yes, it's there.... but it's easily ignorable. Wizard's of the Coast has seemed like they were specifically going out of their way to OUT woke Pathfinder.
I don't think so. Official HASBRO productions are not even close in woke, progressive content compared to Golarion. Difference is that PAIZO were simply progressive from the start, just getting more bold - so it does not stick as sore thumb. Even reading older Pathfinder material it's quite close. And yeah that's also in classic fantasy paradigm.
WOTC sticks as fake and ghey way more even though they made less clearly woke material, because they are obviously fake corporate hacks to the bone. There is not one honest bone in their whole creative crew.
Tales of the Radian Citadel, CruxHaven, The Changes to SpellJammer, going back to Rewokify Curse of Strahd, and the optional rules in Tasha's Caludron now being the main rules (no mechanical differences between the races at all) and the removal of inherently evil races is what puts Wizard's of the Coast over Golarion.
Pathfinder is getting rid of Alignment too (Because of Legal reasons) but they still have inherently evil beings, as they've replaced it with the "Holy" and "Unholy" traits... and it's specifically stated in the remaster "Holy" is what we would call 'good' while "Unholy" is evil.
Demons and Devils aren't inherently evil anymore in WotC's D&D, but they're still inherently Unholy in Pathfinder.
1. Game mechanics can absolutely be patented, if they pass muster. Legal requirements are set by the patent office. Nothing in D&D ever was, but the "tapping" card mechanic for Magic: the Gathering was.
2. The text of game mechanics can be copyrighted, and all work you produce in the US is by default unless you release it into the public domain or under some other license. (Insert various thorny legal issues here.) Exception for descriptions of mechanics that are so simple, basic, and clear that it is effectively impossible to describe the mechanic any other way.
3. Names can be trademarked. This doesn't really relate to game mechanics, most of the time. Game systems yes, individual mechanics not usually.
This is correct information but IANAL and this is not legal advice.
Quote from: Orphan81 on November 18, 2023, 04:33:18 PM
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 18, 2023, 04:12:51 PM
QuoteThe Pathfinder Wokeness is *Vastly* Overstated. Yes, it's there.... but it's easily ignorable. Wizard's of the Coast has seemed like they were specifically going out of their way to OUT woke Pathfinder.
I don't think so. Official HASBRO productions are not even close in woke, progressive content compared to Golarion. Difference is that PAIZO were simply progressive from the start, just getting more bold - so it does not stick as sore thumb. Even reading older Pathfinder material it's quite close. And yeah that's also in classic fantasy paradigm.
WOTC sticks as fake and ghey way more even though they made less clearly woke material, because they are obviously fake corporate hacks to the bone. There is not one honest bone in their whole creative crew.
Tales of the Radian Citadel, CruxHaven, The Changes to SpellJammer, going back to Rewokify Curse of Strahd, and the optional rules in Tasha's Caludron now being the main rules (no mechanical differences between the races at all) and the removal of inherently evil races is what puts Wizard's of the Coast over Golarion.
Pathfinder is getting rid of Alignment too (Because of Legal reasons) but they still have inherently evil beings, as they've replaced it with the "Holy" and "Unholy" traits... and it's specifically stated in the remaster "Holy" is what we would call 'good' while "Unholy" is evil.
Demons and Devils aren't inherently evil anymore in WotC's D&D, but they're still inherently Unholy in Pathfinder.
Correct. The Remaster is jettisoning a LOT of the last remnants of 3E/PF1E that were clinging to PF2E. But there are still heroes and villains.
Meanwhile, WotC's busy scrubbing all their source material for 'sensitivity'.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on November 16, 2023, 08:25:38 PM
I knew ORC was a lie from the outset.
And honestly it is unneeded unless you honestly plan on making supplements for games under, which that seems to be bunk as well.
Creative Commons is for based people.
Yesss!!! I personally like CC BY-SA. But I see the argument for Attribution only. Of course, there is the profit motive question. Chris Gonnerman jokes that he started Basic Fantasy so he could get people to write adventures for him for free. I do think there is some money to be made in open culture gaming, though.
I haven't watched the video in full, but I did read the blog post.
It seems to me that the dev team for Pathfinder Infinite already had plans for how they wanted to license their game out, and that included flavor railings to keep low-effort kitbashing with other games away from Pathfinder Infinite, and that doesn't fit into the ORC License. These products and the rough sketch for how their licenses would work were probably sketched out long before the OGL nonsense and Paizo even started writing up the ORC.
I don't think this is a big issue, but it does raise an eyebrow that Paizo can spend all this effort and PR to promote ORC but didn't even consult their own employees about what they needed for their projects so they could standardize licenses.
Quote from: Corolinth on November 17, 2023, 06:49:20 PM
Quote from: nielspeterdejong on November 17, 2023, 07:39:30 AM
I just hope that they didn't add too much woke BS. I am currently playing Giantslayer with my group, which was from 2015, and aside from the lesbian dwarf/orc relationship (degeneracy on two accounts!) and the occasional female leader, it seems pretty non-woke to me. We have a fat overweight and ugly hill giant woman who keeps proposing to this giant king, and was rejected and now cries about it in her diary we just found, and we have giants literally killing people and a bunch of orcs pitting a captured dwarf ranger (equipped with only a mithryl frying pan) against several bears (the dwarf being our companion, who was able to score a critical hit with his frying pan against one of the charging bears, to the point that one of the other bears got tamed by him and his skill rolls, which was awesome!), so plenty of animal cruelty and making fun of fat women, so not that much woke stuff so far aside from the occasional hot lesbian couple.
I just hope that it stays that way, and that not too many of my books (up until 2017-2018 I believe) have that nonsense put into them.
Paizo is about five years ahead of WotC for woke. Pathfinder products steadily ramp up the rainbow mafia token inclusion, because James Jacobs has to have a character in each book who is trans, so that his fellow Seattle residents can tell him what a good ally he is for queer inclusion.
I haven't read Giantslayer, but I'm betting that either the dwarf or the orc was born a man, but then found a girdle of opposite gender that turned him into the lesbian he always was deep down inside. You see, while it isn't something the PCs will ever have any reason to learn about a random NPC, it's totally something that has to be written into the books so that the reader can know there's representation happening in Paizo products.
Also it's kind of impossible to ignore how many of the major world leaders in Golarion are women. This actually gets started as early as 2008. The Paizo staff have been very concerned with making sure that Golarion isn't perpetuating patriarchy. They become increasingly concerned about male gaze as time goes by, too.
By 2015, Pathfinder has become woke as shit, it just doesn't seem that way now because they've been steadily turning up the dial.
Yeah, I noticed that all the leaders were female for some reason as well, or there was a female paladin in Giantslayer. A female half orc leader of the human village, a lesbian dwarf/half-orc couple, a female orc captain on the ship, a female hill giant leader... Honestly, it is a bit glaring, but I'm at least willing to overlook that somewhat since most of them are attractive (aside from the fat ugly hill giant leader, who is mocked for being fat). So while that was in it, it wasn't as bad as it currently is fortunately.
Honestly, I noticed that while most of the Pathfinder 1E fans were old school 3.5 D&D guy friends, who don't care much about woke stuff, some of them have turned into woke and linger around on reddit forums and discord channels. Had a discussion just with one who unironically believed in "the patriarchy" and how we should add in "inclusivity" while, of course, his entire friend group was white old men XD These people only believe in a diverse society while their own neighborhood is still completely white. If that changes even slightly, like in New York where they finally start feeling the pain of unlimited immigration just a little bit, they very quickly change their tune.
Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 19, 2023, 04:24:03 PM
Quote from: Orphan81 on November 18, 2023, 04:33:18 PM
Quote from: Wrath of God on November 18, 2023, 04:12:51 PM
QuoteThe Pathfinder Wokeness is *Vastly* Overstated. Yes, it's there.... but it's easily ignorable. Wizard's of the Coast has seemed like they were specifically going out of their way to OUT woke Pathfinder.
I don't think so. Official HASBRO productions are not even close in woke, progressive content compared to Golarion. Difference is that PAIZO were simply progressive from the start, just getting more bold - so it does not stick as sore thumb. Even reading older Pathfinder material it's quite close. And yeah that's also in classic fantasy paradigm.
WOTC sticks as fake and ghey way more even though they made less clearly woke material, because they are obviously fake corporate hacks to the bone. There is not one honest bone in their whole creative crew.
Tales of the Radian Citadel, CruxHaven, The Changes to SpellJammer, going back to Rewokify Curse of Strahd, and the optional rules in Tasha's Caludron now being the main rules (no mechanical differences between the races at all) and the removal of inherently evil races is what puts Wizard's of the Coast over Golarion.
Pathfinder is getting rid of Alignment too (Because of Legal reasons) but they still have inherently evil beings, as they've replaced it with the "Holy" and "Unholy" traits... and it's specifically stated in the remaster "Holy" is what we would call 'good' while "Unholy" is evil.
Demons and Devils aren't inherently evil anymore in WotC's D&D, but they're still inherently Unholy in Pathfinder.
Correct. The Remaster is jettisoning a LOT of the last remnants of 3E/PF1E that were clinging to PF2E. But there are still heroes and villains.
Meanwhile, WotC's busy scrubbing all their source material for 'sensitivity'.
Yeah, and those last remnants of 3E/PF1E are what made Paizo and the hobby great in the first place. Now it is just boring and everything is pretty much the same! I mean, I like options, but the core classes need to be unique and have their own feel. Now a wizard and a fighter can both do area of effect damage (the wizard slightly more, but still...) and they feel too much like the same. Spellcasters in PF2E can only just cast a few spells per day, and then spam cantrips.
I mean, I like scaling cantrips, which is why I added them as an optional rule for my Pathfinder 1st edition homebrew and guide 8-page PDF:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XNgxsZwfWU4QQHTSIA9UInIaSkgb7uiI/view
But I still kept it limited as the idea was still that spells are valuable and that if you want to have a good prolonged combat fighter then the martial classes are your thing. And if you still feel like the martial classes underperform compared to spellcasters as the mid and higher levels, you can just use the awesome Path of War 3rd party books (But only their archetypes for the main core classes like rogue and fighter, and the Martial Training and Advanced Study feats, for the sake of balance, see also the guide). But overall 3E/PF1E was great from a combat perspective due to how realistic it felt and how the positioning and location on the board had such a big impact. These days people want to make things "simpler" and more "streamlined", and while I understand the appeal it just isn't the same thing.
So yeah, for Pathfinder 1E at least, it seems like the woke stuff are few and far in between, and if you can ignore them (or if your DM leaves them out) you will have a great time with those books still. As it was still somewhat old school and respectful to the old legends. Pathfinder after 2015/2018 however, not so much. Thanks to Paizo, 3.5 not only survived it even thrived for a while, but those days are over. It is best to drop Paizo at this point, and only use the PF1E books, and not be sad that it is over but instead be happy that it happened.
"Banned" implies an active choice. The ORC simply isn't compatible with the arrangement that is currently in place for their Community Content programs. They are still OGL-based, for good and ill.
The Remastered rulebooks are in fact just chock full of open content. You can publish your own Pathfinder 2, right now.