"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Dr. Harry]

It is possible under the new license to depict a beggar?

I mean, generally they had a handicap. They probably are treated inferior to other people.

I guess this means we will have a truly fantasy city. No beggars.. Heck, not even the Feudal society. Because we can't depict the noblity as treating the peasants as inferior.

What a lot of people seem to be missing is that a product cannot portray a real world group as being *intrinsically* inferior, not as being in an inferior position of power. To take a case from American history:

A d20 Modern campaign set in the antebellum South would show African-Americans in an inferior position of power, to wit: enslaved. I don't see this violating the d20STL unless the game tried to say that African-Americans were enslaved because they are intrinsically inferior.

The first situation would be (tragically) historically realistic; the second would be racist.

There is a difference.

 

[Conaill]

And just because it makes for a fun discussion, here are some other "real-world groups" that cannot be depicted as inferior, or "bad" in any way:

- mercenaries
- assassins
- drug dealers
- pedophiles
- slave traders (heh! )
- satan worshippers
- sniveling cowards

Somehow, I have a feeling WotC is not going to push for a literal interpretation of their license on those groups though. On the other hand, I *do* expect not to see any depiction of evil witches in any upcoming d20 products...

 

[TheRaven]

I do have a question about this:

Current, real-world religions and religious groups and/or practices will not be portrayed in any way that promotes disrespect for these religions or their participants.

What about if I create a d20 setting, dealing with the real world and christianity. Doesn't the quality standart mean, that I can't give game stats to real world gods. Let's say I do stats for the devil and for god. Giving the devil an evil alignment and giving god a good alignment would clearly "promote disrespect" for the devil. Writing, that that worshipers of the devil are evil and bad wouldn't be possible. On the other hand I couldn't write, that god is good.

What do I miss ?

 

[Pramas]

Fortunately, I own a copy of Testament; unfortunately, how much more Mythic Vistas stuff I will own is now in question.

Our plans for the Mythic Vistas line are moving ahead unimpeded. I'm a historian by training, so I have no doubts that we can create books that both compellingly present their subject and fall within the new guidelines.

Skull & Bones is done printing (at last!) and will ship to distributors next Friday. We'll be announcing the next Mythic Vistas book shortly.

 

[Orcus]

TheRaven, you have taken this to a level of silly sophistry. That isnt what the license prohibits. The license doesnt say you cant give a religion an alignment. What you may run afoul of is the prohibition against promoting a specific religion. But it would probably be better to not "stat" real world relgions unless you are doing so in a historical context, like, say, a Biblical d20 setting where the people turn sticks to snakes and the apostles and prophets before them did "magic" and cast out demons. If you are attempting to recreate a historical setting you should be fine. Particularly if you are not actually trying to promote a religion and are not actually using your game as a platform to show that a group is in fact inferior. The license doesnt prevent you from depicting the realities of modern or ancient situations.

Clark

 

[Orcus]

Dr. Henry, IMHO, is absolutely correct in his analysis above.

Clark

 

[Dr. Harry]

Skull & Bones is done printing (at last!) and will ship to distributors next Friday.

Huzzah! It must be mine!

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Sorry Clark but reading your home page quotes I am baffled by how you think WotC could possibly see this as a minor tweek. The trademark previously was content neutral and only showed rules complience. Whether I am a corporate hating paraniod or not, surely they can't have seen this as a minor tweek. Sure they might have somehow thought that the community wouldn't mind but accordiing to AV this change caused major divisions within the company and that AV at least made them aware of the scope of this change. According to AV at least WotC was fully aware of what they were doing and because of his statements I can't believe that this was unexpected.

 

[woodelf]

Trouble is, a check with Wizards' legal beagles will show that the book names are registered trademarks. The trademark sign with "Dungeon Master" in Dungeon Master's Guide is there to show that "Dungeon Master" is a trademark of WotC.

Um, no, they aren't. That was my whole point.

In general, titles of single books generally can't be trademarked. "Monster Manual" became trademarkable once there was a Monster Manual II, because the title of a series of books can be trademarked--though, IIRC, not the individual titles in that series. So Monster Manual is likely trademarked. Dungeon Master is a trademark, so Dungeon Master's Guide can be protected. That's about it for WotC books. And, don't forget, trademarks have to be claimed and protected. So if they *do* want to trademark the titles of the books, they have to tell you, and stop you if you infringe. Just took a cursory look at most of the WotC rulebooks, and not a single one claims the book title as a trademark in the trademarks section.

 

[Orcus]

Brown-

That is how they saw it. I am not saying they were right in seeing it that way. I am just telling you how they looked at it. I agree, they should have known better. Like I said, half of this firestorm they created themselves just by HOW they did things (not giving people a heads up, etc). I never said they were right for seeing it that way. I am just telling you the two points of view. To resolve a conflict you always need to understand the conflicting points of view, whether you agree with them or not. That is how you start consesus building that is key to accomplishing a resolution. I need to understand both sides (whether or not I agree with them).

Or, let me restate, that is how I was told they saw it. I may only be getting one view from several internal camps. But that view is apparently the controlling view right now.

Clark