GSL - Devils and Demons?

kenmarable · Jun 18, 2008

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 · Jun 18, 2008

kenmarable said:
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.

kenmarable said:
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 · Jun 18, 2008

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 · Jun 18, 2008

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 · Jun 18, 2008

Caedwyr said:
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 · Jun 18, 2008

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 · Jun 18, 2008

JohnRTroy said:
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 · Jun 18, 2008

Caedwyr said:
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.

Dias Ex Machina · Jun 18, 2008

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.