D&D General Does The D&D Movie Poster Feature Pathfinder Artwork?

The Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves movie poster was previewed today. It was created by an artist called Bosslogic, and features an ampersand containing various pieces of D&D monster art. The poster was on display at San Diego Comic Con as part of the official D&D movie promotional event.

However, one part of the poster appears to be Pathfinder's depiction of an intellect devourer. Is this the same art piece?



Paizo's Pathfinder 2 Bestiary (thanks to @Ir'revrykal for the pic)

It certainly looks like the same piece of art.

Now, the intellect devourer is a D&D monster which appeared way back in 1976, and has appeared in every edition of D&D since. Why does Pathfinder have artwork of one? Well, the creature was first released as Open Gaming Content 20 years ago under the Open Gaming License. Since then, other companies have used the monster, or created their own versions of it -- including Paizo in the Pathfinder RPG. The name and the stat blocks (including the Pathfinder version) are free to use.

The art? Not so much. Art commissioned by Paizo to illustrate its Bestiaries is not Open Gaming Content. While art can be OGC (nowhere in the OGL is the actual subject matter defined -- you can make any of your work OGC and available for use by others, from sheet music to 3D spaceship models), companies rarely designate it as so, and Paizo's intellect devourer art is no exception.

However, the 'open gaming license' tangent is a red herring. It's unlikely that Paramount was thinking in terms of open source TTRPG game rules when it made the poster, and this poster is not released using the OGL, so its terms are not relevant to it. More likely, somebody just assumed that that piece of art was created by WotC, not Paizo. The 'OGL' part of this conversation simply explains why Paizo has a version of the creature too, and why Paizo therefore commissioned art for their version.

For comparison, here is the D&D 5E version of the intellect devourer—presumably the piece of art that should have been used.


It's not the first time mistakes like this have happened. Back in 2018 Old Spice released a D&D class called The Gentleman... except that it was actually a Pathfinder class!

When it comes down to it, this is almost certainly just a simple mistake--a contracted artist, not as versed in TTRPGs as many people reading this, simply didn't realise that other companies could or had made their own versions of the creature, and used the one which fitted the space. Nothing to get upset about, and the companies will likely have a quick phone call and the matter will be settled.

log in or register to remove this ad

Blue Orange

Gone to Texas
1. Someone goofed. (They probably Google-imaged 'intellect devourer', figured 'we own D&D, it's got to be ours', and put the first result in.)
2. I agree, someone's about to get sued.
3. Old Spice released a D&D class? Dang, this hobby's gone mainstream.


Most likely a movie town marketing person’s goof, who isn’t familiar with the game.
It's going to be some graphic designer's goof. Very likely some young graphic designer is going to discover that everything they thought about images you find on the internet and their status in the public domain is wrong.

Also someone at Paramount and/or eOne whose job it was to clear the imagery used in that movie poster is going to have a very bad day along with the graphic designer.


I know WotC buys the art, not sure if Paizo has “one-time use” contracts or purchases it (I assume the latter). I don’t think its malicious, just a newbie-level goof.

Man, just checked the 5E MM for Intellect Devourer. Way different looking…

Von Ether

Just because the artist licensed their work to Paizo does not necessarily preclude them from also licensing it to someone else at a later date.

I don't know if that's what actually happened here, but anyone claiming this is theft is just speculating.
Most imagery is work for hire, which means who ever bought that image owns the piece. The odds are very high that piece is owned by Piazo, not the artist. This way, the company can recycle the art in adventure modules and such. Almost every TTRPG company would rather pay more to own it outright and have it in a library.

This doesn't stop the artist for using it in their portfolio, though they can't sell prints or the like.

In fact, for that licensing to happen, the artist would have had to make the art first, someone in Piazo would have had to spotted it some where really really loved it and made an offer, the first would have been for more money to own it. And then bargain for a limited use license, which is much more rare. Usually they are one time use and that's it. Most supplements don't make enough money to go justify going back and re-negotiate.

The other option is stock art, which not the same as licensing art out for limited use. So unless that is a stock art piece. the odds are pretty high that was an accidental theft from Piazo.

Sidenote: If someone is trying to sell you their game company and it doesn't include their work for hire art assets, word files and Indesign stuff, they're just offloading their stock and you being taken for a ride.
Last edited:

Epic Threats

Visit Our Sponsor

Epic Threats

An Advertisement