Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="see" data-source="post: 8888884" data-attributes="member: 10531">"Drow" is an alternate spelling in the Oxford English Dictionary for "trow", an Orkney and Shetland dialect word for "troll". "The Duergar" was the name of the story about a kind of dwarf in the 1944 story collection Folk Tales of the North Country.The problem, accordingly, is not the names. The problem is that the whole concept-cluster around D&D drow is original to D&D. Now, sure, you can make yours a little different. But then you have them alongside kobolds that are just a little different from the D&D version, and dwarves that are just a little different than the D&D version, and dragons that are just a little different, and so on and so forth . . . well.Either all your differences result in something quite distinct from D&D lore, or you've got enough points of similarity that what you've created is a derivative work of the stuff WotC has the copyright on.  And there is no clear line for what constitutes enough similarity to be a "derivative work". Derivative work law is exactly what blows up the 19th Century truism that "copyright protects expression, not ideas" when you go to argue that you wrote all your text anew, and why people trying to do game material compatible with D&D without a license from WotC need actual advice from actual lawyers.When I read an argument that Pathfinder 2nd edition, as it exists, doesn't need the OGL 1.0a to be legal, this is what causes me to shake my head in despair. You go into court and try to argue, say, the black/blue/green/red/white dragons as presented in the 2nd edition Pathfinder Bestiary aren't derivative works of things WotC owns the copyright to, you will be handed your head.(No, I'm not a lawyer, so no, I'm not a "real expert". Nor is my prediction that you'll be handed your head legal advice. But it's still true.)</blockquote>

Verification