GSL - Devils and Demons?

[kenmarable]

I'm still digesting it all, but from looking over the SRD, it appears that the words "Devil" and "Demon" are licensed, but unlike all of the other entries the actual individual devils and demons are not? Am I missing something?

Also, I had hoped with the greater restrictions, they would have licensed more of the monsters they had restricted in 3.x (beholder, gith, mind flayer, displacer beast, etc.) but at first glance it looks like every single one of them are all still closed off. Ah well.

[Grazzt]

Originally Posted by kenmarable

I'm still digesting it all, but from looking over the SRD, it appears that the words "Devil" and "Demon" are licensed, but unlike all of the other entries the actual individual devils and demons are not?

It appears so.

Originally Posted by kenmarable

Also, I had hoped with the greater restrictions, they would have licensed more of the monsters they had restricted in 3.x (beholder, gith, mind flayer, displacer beast, etc.) but at first glance it looks like every single one of them are all still closed off. Ah well.

I think the Carrion Crawler's in there this time.

[JohnRTroy]

Well, they're building a new cosmology, so they probably want to protect those guys.

Alternately, it could be to prevent third parties from being sued or getting bad attention. Demons and Devils have been targets of the games critics. This prevents a situation where somebody writes a real graphic and disgusting product that causes a lawyer somewhere to scream "Satanism" and "Obscenity" and drags WoTC to court with them.

[Caedwyr]

I'm a little confused how they can restrict other game designers from using the words Demon or Devil. Both are existing terms for real-world mythological/religious based creatures. If someone wanted to create an adventure using a Paradise lost inspired Demon, or Greek mythology Daemon how exactly could WoTC enforce their claim to these?

[Alzrius]

Originally Posted by Caedwyr

I'm a little confused how they can restrict other game designers from using the words Demon or Devil. Both are existing terms for real-world mythological/religious based creatures. If someone wanted to create an adventure using a Paradise lost inspired Demon, or Greek mythology Daemon how exactly could WoTC enforce their claim to these?

The terms "demon" and "devil" are in the GSL; you can use them for new monsters that you create. However, it seems that you can't use existing terms that are in the PHB/DMG/MM but not the GSL as a result of agreeing to the GSL's restrictions. For example, I don't think you could make a new demon and call it a succubus...but I'm not a lawyer.

I'm having a hard time believing that they meant to cut out all of the demons and devils, though. This has got to be an oversight.

[Caedwyr]

The thing is, a large number of the demons they've included are strongly based on existing mythologies. The Succubus (and Incubi) for example are mentioned in religious texts dating back to the 1400's at least. Sure a number of the iconic demon and devil names are from D&D, but the creatures they were inspired by largely came from other mythologies. From the list of other monsters they seem to be claiming as their own (Tarasque, it looks like they are trying to grab quite a bit under their control.

[TristanH]

Originally Posted by JohnRTroy

Well, they're building a new cosmology, so they probably want to protect those guys.

Alternately, it could be to prevent third parties from being sued or getting bad attention. Demons and Devils have been targets of the games critics. This prevents a situation where somebody writes a real graphic and disgusting product that causes a lawyer somewhere to scream "Satanism" and "Obscenity" and drags WoTC to court with them.

I find it hard to believe that a company that put a demon spawned race, as well as a class that makes a "pact" with an infernal power into the main core book, is really that concerned with cries of "Satanism" over a third party product.

[robertsconley]

Originally Posted by Caedwyr

The thing is, a large number of the demons they've included are strongly based on existing mythologies. The Succubus (and Incubi) for example are mentioned in religious texts dating back to the 1400's at least. Sure a number of the iconic demon and devil names are from D&D, but the creatures they were inspired by largely came from other mythologies. From the list of other monsters they seem to be claiming as their own (Tarasque, it looks like they are trying to grab quite a bit under their control.

The short answer is that you will need to create your own Devils and Demons.

But there is a worse implication. The license intent is that you don't redefine any of the licensed terms. So what is a Demon defined as? If you look at page 52 you will see there are a couple of paragraph before any Demon entries that explain what Demons are.

So does this means that if you write about Demons for a 4th edition product it has to be under that SPECIFIC cosmology? If you are say writing a old testament or babylonian product that you can't call their evil supernatural beings Demons because those two cultures have a different definition (but similar) for Demons. The same for Devils? You can't even EXPLAIN the default cosmology because that would result in a violation of the prohibition of copying any text.

Like the OGL the reality will come out in the months to come as Wizards and the 3rd party publishers interact. It could be that Wizards wants keep up all in lock step with the marketing of fourth edition default world and all. It could be Wizards doesn't really care as long as publishers limit themselves to expansions, settings and modules and not try to recreate the rulebook.

[DiasExMachina]

Thats a scary thought. It implies that despite the fact they cannot copyright names like "Elf" and "Demon", they can stipulate that if you want to use their 4.0 SRD, you cannot, at least not in the way you want if it contradicts their definition of it. I could see creating all new fey-like races and not call them elf, but to prevent us from touching demons at all seems a little harsh.

[robertsconley]

dupe

[DiasExMachina]

I think we should look at what SRD stands for. It is a reference...so, I think what this means is that you can reference our elf but you cannot modify our elf. Right? So...this could be a good thing. By not including a non-copyrighted term like demon, they are saying "You cannot reference our demon" thus allowing you to create your own.

How's that?

[kenmarable]

Originally Posted by DiasExMachina

I think we should look at what SRD stands for. It is a reference...so, I think what this means is that you can reference our elf but you cannot modify our elf. Right? So...this could be a good thing. By not including a non-copyrighted term like demon, they are saying "You cannot reference our demon" thus allowing you to create your own.

How's that?

Actually, "demon" and "devil" are in there as headings, but with nothing under them.

However, I know there's strict interpretation of the license if that you can't redefine "elf" or "demon", but I'm sure as this plays out between WotC and third parties, it will become clear that WotC doesn't want people redefining things like "Dexterity", "hit points", "Armor Class", but are fine with elves that aren't an exact thematic match to their elves. (But again, that's just my guess at their intent.)

I'm just surprised that the demon and devil headings are in there without anything under them. We don't really need an SRD to use very generic terms like "demon" and "devil", just the specific demon and devil monsters. So if they wanted them blocked off, why even include the headings? And why try to block them off when, as someone mentioned above, many of them are pulled from mythology and can third party publishers can just create their own replacements? Not to mention they were very often used and not very abused in the days of 3.x. Looking back, I'm pretty sure that just about every adventure I wrote as a freelancer had some devil or demon in it. But now, unless this is an oversight, nothing, despite having a core class that allegedly interacts with them, and a core race that has dealt with them. They are now more core than ever, yet cut off from third party publishers. That just seems really odd.

[jaldaen]

I mentioned this in another thread, but I thought the same thought applies here:

Is the assumption that you cannot use any Devils/Demons going off of the assumption that the section headings are "4e References?"

I initially read them as section headings with the 4e References below them being what WotC refers to as "4e References," which you cannot "define, redefine, or alter."

If this is the case, then you can use any of the Devils and Demons in the MM because they are not "4e References." You cannot use Beholder or Mind Flayer b/c they are not given a "section" in the SRD... if you can't use any Demon/Devils then why include the "section" entry for them at all.

I would also note that all the 4e References in the MM section are specific names for special powers or already defined terms.

So my question to Scott and Linae is (similiar to my question in the GSL thread):

Is Demon/Devil a 4e Reference in and of itself or just the section heading implying we can use all Demons and Devils in compatible products?

What about Monsters with "subsections" of particular monter names? Are those particular names 4e References or just subheadings for ease of finding the 4e Refrences WotC is concerned with keeping standard?

Thanks!

[jaldaen]

Originally Posted by kenmarable

Actually, "demon" and "devil" are in there as headings, but with nothing under them.

This was my reading as well

Originally Posted by kenmarable

I'm just surprised that the demon and devil headings are in there without anything under them. We don't really need an SRD to use very generic terms like "demon" and "devil", just the specific demon and devil monsters. So if they wanted them blocked off, why even include the headings?

I think it is because its the only way they can indicat you can use Demon/Devils... if they did not include them as headings, then the Demons and Devils would not be included in the GSL opened material, like the Beholder and Mind Flayer, who have no entries and therefore can't be used.

[Yair]

Originally Posted by DiasExMachina

Thats a scary thought. It implies that despite the fact they cannot copyright names like "Elf" and "Demon", they can stipulate that if you want to use their 4.0 SRD, you cannot, at least not in the way you want if it contradicts their definition of it. I could see creating all new fey-like races and not call them elf, but to prevent us from touching demons at all seems a little harsh.

That's my impression of things. The "headings only" interpretation makes sense in that it would be better, but I don't see it in the license. I don't see a category of "You can Reference this, but can ALSO change the definition of it".

[Morrus]

Originally Posted by Caedwyr

I'm a little confused how they can restrict other game designers from using the words Demon or Devil. Both are existing terms for real-world mythological/religious based creatures. If someone wanted to create an adventure using a Paradise lost inspired Demon, or Greek mythology Daemon how exactly could WoTC enforce their claim to these?

Because you've signed a license whereby you agree not to. If you do something in the agreement that you agreed not to do, the agreement is terminated: in other words, you don't get to use WotC logo, branding and so forth any more.

Hypothetically, that is, because WotC hasn't actually prevented you using the words Demon or Devil.

[DiasExMachina]

Ahh but there is nothing listed under Demon or Devil...I take that to mean the same as the reason why they printed the words D4 and D20 and the like. They did not list the specific monsters, so you can't use them...well that means you can use the idea of Demons, just not theirs specifically. Seems to me that makes it open for you to do whatever you want with yours.

[Lizard]

In the hopes of getting an official reply...does "not redefine" mean "Cannot change the fluff text"?

For example, let's say I want to make up Demons and Devils, and use those terms, but in my setting/supplement, "Demons" are humans corrupted by Eldritch Forces and "Devils" are creatures from a destroyed parallel universe. Demons do not live in the abyss, but in the dark places of the Earth, and Devils dwell on a single burned-out world drifting in the Astral Sea.

Is this legitimate, or do I need to create new terms? It's difficult to see if "redefinition" means merely MECHANICAL redefinition or includes the fluff text -- what if I want to write "The Book of Tieflings" which has a totally different background for them? The inverse of this is, if the fluff text cannot be "redefined", can I build on it, writing a sourcebook for playing in the lost Tiefling empire, for example?

The most restrictive reading of the license (usually the safest way to go) would say "None of the above" -- I cannot make up new Tiefling fluff OR build on the existing fluff. I hope this is an incorrect reading.

[Yair]

Originally Posted by Lizard

The most restrictive reading of the license (usually the safest way to go) would say "None of the above" -- I cannot make up new Tiefling fluff OR build on the existing fluff. I hope this is an incorrect reading.

I'm betting it's the correct one. If only because it's practically impossible to differentiate fluff from rules in a robust simple manner, and the GSL doesn't seem to attempt to.