So, the B*h*ld*r is no longer OGC...

[Gez]

As for some of the monsters not being included in the SRD, what's the big deal. So Wizards decided to hold back some of the unique monsters that have been created for DnD over the last 20 years and help to define the unique aspects of the world(s) that they have crafted.

The Displacer Beast, also removed, comes from a Van Vogt short story (as discussed on this thread, search for posts made by Aitch Eye).

But then again, Zulkir stated that most of the old creatures are from unknown origin.

One thing is sure, D&D has had a lot of definetely not medieval fantasy inspirations; and has been the most sci-fi of generic med-fan RPGs around.

 

[Quinn]

Not quite. Any publisher can use any version of the OGL; and, to my knowledge, there have been 2, 1.0 and 1.0a. The SRD is just the SRD. The removed monsters were originally in the draft SRD. A Gentleperson's Agreement existed which stated, more or less, that the publishers could use anything in the draft, but would immediately make changes to their products once the official version came out.

Now, it is my understanding that WotC is being very helpful here and allowing publishers to use the closed monsters, but you have to ask first, not just assume (and you know what happens when you assume).

IANAL & I am not an agent of WotC.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I imagine a good lawyer could also tear this to shreds. The "draft" was published on the OGF website for a couple of years now, and it could be argued that if it was never meant to be used as part of OGL then it never should've been posted to begin with. Gentleperson's agreement or not.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Tewligan]

My concern now is for a Green Ronin book I was looking forward to.......a races of renown book similar to plot & poison but about Illithids.... I wonder if it will still be released?

It's actually by Paradigm, although it ties in with GR's Plot & Poison. I think it's called "The Veiled Masters", and it's been okayed for release by WotC. All is good.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I'm not a lawyer either, but I imagine a good lawyer could also tear this to shreds. The "draft" was published on the OGF website for a couple of years now, and it could be argued that if it was never meant to be used as part of OGL then it never should've been posted to begin with. Gentleperson's agreement or not.

I don't think so, myself. The agreement was along the lines of "by using this unreleased material you agree to change and update to conform to the release." That means that anyone using it agreed to it. It'll be kind of hard for a lawyer to convince a judge or jury that "well, yes, they used it but they didn't agree."

It's actually by Paradigm, although it ties in with GR's Plot & Poison. I think it's called "The Veiled Masters", and it's been okayed for release by WotC. All is good.

Woohoo! Of course, it's likely all "closed content" without WotC permission to use Mind Flayers as well, but at least Paradigm doesn't take such a loss.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

Just out of curiosity, is this a case of people overreacting - "OMIGOD, they've taken away (fill in the blank)!!!!!!!! - or of WOTC once again making a perfectly reasonable decision (from their point of view), but not explaining it until there's an outcry?

As with many of the changes WOTC has made since 3E came out, when I first heard of this, my initial reaction was "Why?" Some posters on this thread have suggested a couple possible answers, but why in the world should we be guessing? Yes, WOTC doesn't *owe* us an explanation, but wouldn't that be good public relations? Just a thought...

 

[Quinn]

Question: Is there any restriction in the license that prevents someone from creating a creature called an "Eye Tyrant" which bares a shockingly similar resemblence?

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

Yep, there definitely would be a major problem with creating an "Eye Tyrant."

The Eye Tyrant is a type of Beholder Kin from Monsters of Faerun.

Of course the Dread Watcher (see above) should be ok. I'm not absolutely certain it's completely legal, since it bears some obvious similarities to the Beholder and being too similar to a copyrighted work is grounds for law suit.

 

[Gez]

Yep, there definitely would be a major problem with creating an "Eye Tyrant."

The Eye Tyrant is a type of Beholder Kin from Monsters of Faerun.

Actually, no. Eye Tyrant is the nickname of beholders, just like illithids are mind-flayer or sahuagin are devilfishes.

Of course the Dread Watcher (see above) should be ok. I'm not absolutely certain it's completely legal, since it bears some obvious similarities to the Beholder and being too similar to a copyrighted work is grounds for law suit.

Have you seen this ?

IANAL, and even less of American laws, but if they don't file lawsuit against Apogee/3DRealms, Origin Software, and id Software, then they would be hypocritical to attack a tiny d20 publisher.

 

[Anubis]

The thing is . . . They were not the ones to invent beholders, mind flayers, or displacers beasts! Those aren't even D&D original, they're from mythology! Trying to copyright that material would be like trying to copyright stuff about King Arthur and Camelot, i.e. NOT POSSIBLE.

That's another part of the problem. They act as if they own the rights when they do not.

 

[Gez]

Yes, WOTC doesn't *owe* us an explanation, but wouldn't that be good public relations? Just a thought...

Have you seen this ?

The thing is . . . They were not the ones to invent beholders, mind flayers, or displacers beasts! Those aren't even D&D original, they're from mythology! Trying to copyright that material would be like trying to copyright stuff about King Arthur and Camelot, i.e. NOT POSSIBLE.

You. Are. Sure. Of. What. You. Said ?

I'd like to know which mythology has spawned mind-flayers and beholders, then. If someone said illithids and yuan-ti are from some Edgar R. Burrough book, I could believe it; but I can't believe big floating eyeballs that negates magic were seen drinking ale with Odin or one of his colleague...