Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

GSL posted


D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond)

151 to 200 of 807 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Dark Psion wrote:
Is "repaginated" an actual word editors use?

yes... copy editors and layout folks LOATHE it.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Actually, this sort of one-sided agreement doesn't really surprise me. In my line of work, if you are holding all the cards, then if anyone wants to play ball, it's by your rules . . . and preferably with the least amount of work on the cardholder's side.

It makes sense if WotC thinks it's the leader of RPGing and 3rd party independents' survival hinges on playing ball.

I imagine that from a business sense, WotC anticipates that, even with the adversity many players have against 4e, eventually the majority of people will come over to 4th edition. Moreover, if people aren't happy with 4e and outspoken against it, WotC has probably written them off already.

So, again, it makes sense.

Andoran

What I don't get is this: WOTC is the 600 lb. gorilla in the room. Why do they have to take this harsh position? The small houses are not a threat to the 600 lb. gorilla. I think that doing this license so harshly will bite them in the butt more than anything else.
So they've essentially just created that much more competition, and that much more of a schism in their customer base. It doesn't make any sense.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dark Psion wrote:
Is "repaginated" an actual word editors use?

I'm repaginating right now IYKWIMAITYD....


Pete Apple wrote:
Watcher wrote:
fray wrote:
Who is Lorrain Williams?

Its Porteguese for SATAN.

Actually, I'm not sure.. but my best guess was that she was a TSR CEO back in 2nd Edition days that was not loved for some of her decisions. I didn't know either, and someone had to tell me. I might be wrong.

Learn, Children, of the olden times when She-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named Ruled: LINK

I love that you linked that article. It's a great read.

Qadira Contributor; Publisher, Kobold Press; RPG Superstar Judge

DaveMage wrote:
Remember, per the GSL, you still have to be approved by Wizards before you can use the GSL. So technically, they could say that unless you agree to go 4E all the way, you aren't even allowed to use the GSL. (Not that I think they would deny you, of course...but they could.)

Uh, why publish a license that you refuse to approve for use? It would be easier just to say "No free license for 4E will be available under any terms".

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

There was a theory that Hasbro wants to be in a position to sell the DnD property, or some portion of it. Would arranging the GSL this way allow them to do so with less difficulty?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wolfgang Baur wrote:
DaveMage wrote:
Remember, per the GSL, you still have to be approved by Wizards before you can use the GSL. So technically, they could say that unless you agree to go 4E all the way, you aren't even allowed to use the GSL. (Not that I think they would deny you, of course...but they could.)
Uh, why publish a license that you refuse to approve for use? It would be easier just to say "No free license for 4E will be available under any terms".

I have no idea, but it's right there at the start of the license that says your application can be denied.

Taldor

I've read it again, cause I never get enough of legal documents. I am curious if anyone here has ever worked with Lucas or any of the comic/movie houses. It seems like it's closer to that.

The artwork clause smacks of Lucas. "You have to make a Jawa look like a Jawa".


tadkil wrote:
Pete Apple wrote:
Learn, Children, of the olden times when She-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named Ruled: LINK

BLASPHEMY! He has broken the seal on the most infernal Tome!

But only in so far as is needed to add the new 4E GSL in there and reseal it real fast.

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

This license is really almost laughable at the end of the day. I was thinking about it on the drive home, and it offers absolutely no protection. In fact, it doesn't really do anything. At any time, for any reason, or for no reason, WotC can terminate it and you, poor small time publisher, are left holding the bag. The only people I could imagine relying on it are self-publishing/pdf types that have no other option.

I think Vic said it best above: why even bother with a license that doesn't do or mean anything.

Qadira

Heathansson wrote:

What I don't get is this: WOTC is the 600 lb. gorilla in the room. Why do they have to take this harsh position? The small houses are not a threat to the 600 lb. gorilla. I think that doing this license so harshly will bite them in the butt more than anything else.

So they've essentially just created that much more competition, and that much more of a schism in their customer base. It doesn't make any sense.

In a way it makes lots of sense. At my FLGS only two D&D related companies sell well - Wizards and Paizo. All of the other d20/OGL stuff just sits there. In fact they have entire racks of 3.0 3rd party stuff just sitting there. Sure, Green Ronin, Privateer Press, Goodman, Mongoose, and the like do okay, but for every one of them there seem dozens of companies that just crank out crap.

My FLGS has wasted thousands of dollars on inventory that will never sell.

I hope the GSL encourages the better publishers to work out a solid closed license so the cream can rise to the top.


Russ Taylor wrote:

Missing monsters, should folks care...

Also, it looks to me as though you can't print an MM stat block in your module...so any mod that's not WotC is going to involve a lot of page-flipping to DM...

That pretty much killed it for me. I could see setting a limit, but not allowing stat blocks at all? Very inconvenient.


crosswiredmind wrote:
I hope the GSL encourages the better publishers to work out a solid closed license so the cream can rise to the top.

It's a trick. Get an axe.

Taldor

Sebastian wrote:

This license is really almost laughable at the end of the day. I was thinking about it on the drive home, and it offers absolutely no protection. In fact, it doesn't really do anything. At any time, for any reason, or for no reason, WotC can terminate it and you, poor small time publisher, are left holding the bag. The only people I could imagine relying on it are self-publishing/pdf types that have no other option.

I think Vic said it best above: why even bother with a license that doesn't do or mean anything.

I think that's who it's aimed at, yes. Your point earlier about larger publishers negotiating a different type of deal may be valid. I wonder if now that they have this stake in the ground to cover all the general riff-raff they are now able to start thinking about appropriate fees for larger licensees.

For example I read Wolfgang's note over on Open Design. As is, he's right that KQ is SOL. But is it possible that for .XX$ for every issue he could get a modified license that allows publishing of something that includes both? Would he want to do it? Who knows?

Qadira

Wolfgang Baur wrote:
DaveMage wrote:
Remember, per the GSL, you still have to be approved by Wizards before you can use the GSL. So technically, they could say that unless you agree to go 4E all the way, you aren't even allowed to use the GSL. (Not that I think they would deny you, of course...but they could.)
Uh, why publish a license that you refuse to approve for use? It would be easier just to say "No free license for 4E will be available under any terms".

Everyone would've said "Those Bastards!!!" and hissed and railed and screamed. Now we are supposed to say "Well, at least they did that." and feel like they are doing everyone some big favor.

CWM- Still optimistic!?!? Wow. I am impressed. You are tenacious, brother.

Osirion

All I have to say is good call Paizo.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Pete Apple wrote:

But is it possible that for .XX$ for every issue he could get a modified license that allows publishing of something that includes both? Would he want to do it? Who knows?

For as long as it took to get WotC legal to get out the GSL, he (Wolfgang) may not get an answer on such a request until 2010....


Doombunny wrote:
Pete Apple wrote:
Watcher wrote:
fray wrote:
Who is Lorrain Williams?

Its Porteguese for SATAN.

Actually, I'm not sure.. but my best guess was that she was a TSR CEO back in 2nd Edition days that was not loved for some of her decisions. I didn't know either, and someone had to tell me. I might be wrong.

Learn, Children, of the olden times when She-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named Ruled: LINK
I love that you linked that article. It's a great read.

I remember first hearing her name when the Buck Rogers game came out- even then she was referred to as "that woman"- by all accounts an insufferable snob and probably one of the major causes for the decline of TSR.

Taldor

DaveMage wrote:
Pete Apple wrote:

But is it possible that for .XX$ for every issue he could get a modified license that allows publishing of something that includes both? Would he want to do it? Who knows?

For as long as it took to get WotC legal to get out the GSL, he (Wolfgang) may not get an answer on such a request until 2010....

Actually, now that they have the base document done, it's much, much, much easier to do a derivative addendum. So it probably might even be ready for GenCon. 2009. :-)

Andoran

crosswiredmind wrote:
Heathansson wrote:

What I don't get is this: WOTC is the 600 lb. gorilla in the room. Why do they have to take this harsh position? The small houses are not a threat to the 600 lb. gorilla. I think that doing this license so harshly will bite them in the butt more than anything else.

So they've essentially just created that much more competition, and that much more of a schism in their customer base. It doesn't make any sense.

In a way it makes lots of sense. At my FLGS only two D&D related companies sell well - Wizards and Paizo. All of the other d20/OGL stuff just sits there. In fact they have entire racks of 3.0 3rd party stuff just sitting there. Sure, Green Ronin, Privateer Press, Goodman, Mongoose, and the like do okay, but for every one of them there seem dozens of companies that just crank out crap.

My FLGS has wasted thousands of dollars on inventory that will never sell.

I hope the GSL encourages the better publishers to work out a solid closed license so the cream can rise to the top.

I can dig that angle. I respect that angle

But....considering those same golden companies have been twisting in the wind for the last few months, can you honestly say you see this coming? I guess time will tell.


DaveMage wrote:
Pete Apple wrote:

But is it possible that for .XX$ for every issue he could get a modified license that allows publishing of something that includes both? Would he want to do it? Who knows?

For as long as it took to get WotC legal to get out the GSL, he (Wolfgang) may not get an answer on such a request until 2010....

I kind of think they had this turd ready to launch but tried to hide it for as long as possible.


Erik Mona wrote:
DudeMonkey wrote:
WotC is basically saying that they can yank the rug out from under you any time they want with this license. Is that how it reads to everyone else?

Yes, that's my take.

DudeMonkey wrote:
I don't think I would publish under this license if I was in this industry, professionally speaking.

That's my take, too.

Thanks to Paizo for sticking with the OGL. This new GSL makes me think that if I open the 4e PHB and hold it the wrong way, I might get sued.

The GSL severely limits the usefulness of a published adventure, mainly due to not being able to reproduce stat blocks or minor tables for quick reference. Page flipping and fumbling required. Not good.

I will definitely be shipping my 4e set back to WotC this weekend... Hmmm... remember the "Death to Disco" days when people crushed and burned disco albums at the end of the 70's? Hmmm...

Osirion

Cursory glances, but have to say I am glad Paizo had a backup plan. Am I wrong or does it feel like it is difficult for an adventure writer or alternative "setting" designer to come up with material based on the GSL.

Some sections seem to state that you must use material verbatim from the GSL (so no Advanced Players Handbooks or Book of Experimental Might to make 4th Edition more to peoples likings).

Do I read this right?

Taldor

It seems too big a risk to jump into the GSL at this point. If I were a 3rd party company (note: armchair analysis imminent!), I'd just give up on it. It might bring a lot of money in the short term, but when 5th Edition rolls around, what's to stop WotC from not offering any license? So any RPG product you've ever produced, whether OGL or GSL, is off-limits, and your company is basically done.

I think I would rally around one of the other systems around that offer licenses, which are not as few and far between as some might think. True20, Pathfinder RPG, heck, even Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying System (plus many, many more, I imagine).

In the end, going 4E would require a lot of faith in WotC not to end up pulling the chair out from under you, and I don't think, with all the recent news we've seen, they have earned that kind of trust.

Qadira Contributor; Publisher, Kobold Press; RPG Superstar Judge

Pete Apple wrote:
For example I read Wolfgang's note over on Open Design. As is, he's right that KQ is SOL. But is it possible that for .XX$ for every issue he could get a modified license that allows publishing of something that includes both? Would he want to do it? Who knows?

The legal and licensing department of Hasbro would know. I haven't figured out whether I'm going to ask. Tonight is probably not the best time to make that decision.

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

crosswiredmind wrote:


I hope the GSL encourages the better publishers to work out a solid closed license so the cream can rise to the top.

Hopefully, the license will be like coach seating in airplanes - designed to be so bad that you want to pay to upgrade to first class. The GSL is so horrible, that you really need to negotiate a private contract with WotC. A real company would be insane to rely on this license for protection. The only companies that would be negotiating such individual contracts would be the ones that could pay royalties, so I guess in a way, the GSL could drive up quality and identify good products. Anyone relying on the GSL is almost certainly going to be of poor quality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, well. Suddenly I don’t look so crazy up on my soapbox with the cardboard sign screaming about liars and fornicators.

Someone sick Richard Stallman on WoTC, please.

The best thing about the GSL? You can reject it wholesale and continue to publish fine products.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I think all the criticisms I have with this have been well stated by others above. Consider them repeated.

Since I'm a silver lining kind of guy the best I can make of this is that the downloadable SRD pdf has some handy lists for those who want to play 4e. And pretty clear formatting of statblocks for houserules you make up. ...That's pretty much it.

Whoo hoo.


Sebastian wrote:


Hopefully, the license will be like coach seating in airplanes - designed to be so bad that you want to pay to upgrade to first class. The GSL is so horrible, that you really need to negotiate a private contract with WotC. A real company would be insane to rely on this license for protection. The only companies that would be doing that would be the ones that could pay royalties, so I guess in a way, the GSL could drive up quality and identify good products. Anyone relying on the GSL is almost certainly going to be of poor quality.

Or at best a labor-of-love, garage operation.

Either way, if the GSL truly is the only option, there will be near zero third-party product worth a damn. And that seriously reduces the appeal of 4E. How can WOTC not get that?


firbolg wrote:
I remember first hearing her name when the Buck Rogers game came out- even then she was referred to as "that woman"- by all accounts an insufferable snob and probably one of the major causes for the decline of TSR.

This snippet from that article makes me sad. Like watching someone learn particle physics and then go on a drinking binge and lose it all.

"They Sue Regularly"

With Wizards of the Coast growing at an explosive rate and beginning to nip at its heels, Williams and TSR began to squeeze the life out of the very market that had supported it. Rather than attempt to grow the marketplace and win in competition, Williams instead tried to banish everybody else from what she apparently viewed as her private domain. Under her management the company began to ruthlessly enforce its own copyrights along with a few it didn't even have (such as a claim that nobody else could use the word "dragon").

It also became incredibly hostile to everyone, especially its fans. As the Internet exploded onto the public consciousness in the early- to mid-90's, Dungeons & Dragons players naturally brought their chosen hobby online. TSR followed them, issuing dozens of cease and desist orders that shut down fan sites. The company even tried to prevent D&D fans from discussing the game in chat rooms and on message boards, earning the derisive nickname: "They Sue Regularly."

The company was hostile to its fans, business partners, and even former associates that didn't have much clout with the company. TSR became infamous for micromanaging its licensing partners, with draconian licensing managers that dictated everything that a licensor could do, from the color of a box to exactly which piece of licensed D&D artwork the licensee would be forced to use. Even Gary Gygax himself wasn't immune. When Gygax created a new RPG system with Game Designer's Workshop called Dangerous Journeys, TSR sued him for copyright infringement. The case was eventually settled when TSR agreed to purchase all rights to the game for a considerable sum of money -- a pyrrhic victory for TSR, as the case cost the company far more than it could afford.

Paizo Employee CEO

Vic Wertz wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
Actually this reads very much like the licenses I have been party to way back when I worked on licensed products form film and comic properties. Basically the owner of the IP holds all of the cards.
Every such license I've even seen has at least had "niceties" such as sell-off periods, opportunities to correct accidental breaches, occasional use of the word "mutual" —that sort of thing.

Not to mention a term, like "you can make products for the next three years under this license." The GSL is what we call "at will."

-Lisa


I saw this coming.
Many, many, many months ago I actually posted on a thread here on Paizo that I was afraid of something like this coming about.

Now to dig through the threads and find it.

*Shakes head*

Well, I'm happy Paizo's going the route they are.

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

lojakz wrote:

I saw this coming.

Many, many, many months ago I actually posted on a thread here on Paizo that I was afraid of something like this coming about.

Now to dig through the threads and find it.

*Shakes head*

Well, I'm happy Paizo's going the route they are.

Great. Why do I have the feeling I'll be the first person who responded to you in that thread to say "they'd never do something that stupid, put away your tinfoil hat."

Hmmm...crow...yummy...

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Watcher wrote:
fray wrote:
Who is Lorrain Williams?
Actually, I'm not sure.. but my best guess was that she was a TSR CEO back in 2nd Edition days that was not loved for some of her decisions. I didn't know either, and someone had to tell me. I might be wrong.

The short story is she's the one that took complete over the company when Gygax and TSR parted ways. A lot of good things happened under her rein, Dragonlance, Dragon, and Dungeon magazines. However, she didn't like gaming and as a result a lot of product was published untested. She's ultimately responsible for sinking TSR though because she allowed the company to continue produce material when material wasn't selling.

It's very interesting that the GSL is dedicated to her. If she died, it's news to me. On the other hand, this could be a subtle message from the D&D crew at WOTC.

Side note, she's also the one that told the creators of Record of Lodoss War "no" to making Lodoss an AD&D campaign setting. So they made their own rules that are popular in japan and sell in the $100s on ebay.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Pete Apple wrote:
I've read it again, cause I never get enough of legal documents. I am curious if anyone here has ever worked with Lucas or any of the comic/movie houses. It seems like it's closer to that.

I have worked with Lucasfilm contracts. They're very good at defining things clearly and as rigidly as they need to without restricting you to impossible business choices. "Here is your sandbox, and here is what you can and can't do in it." This license is more draconian, in my opinion, by an order of magnitude.

Pete Apple wrote:

The artwork clause smacks of Lucas. "You have to make a Jawa look like a Jawa".

One of us is misunderstanding the artwork clause. I'm seeing "Don't make your jawa look *too much* like our jawa."


Sebastian wrote:
lojakz wrote:

I saw this coming.

Many, many, many months ago I actually posted on a thread here on Paizo that I was afraid of something like this coming about.

Now to dig through the threads and find it.

*Shakes head*

Well, I'm happy Paizo's going the route they are.

Great. Why do I have the feeling I'll be the first person who responded to you in that thread to say "they'd never do something that stupid, put away your tinfoil hat."

Hmmm...crow...yummy...

I don't know if you've actually ever responded to a post of mine before Sebastian (though it could be the case). I think the first person to respond was Eric Mona actually. But I'll sift through and see if I can find it.

I'm really just putting off packing. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber
SirUrza wrote:
It's very interesting that the GSL is dedicated to her. If she died, it's news to me. On the other hand, this could be a subtle message from the D&D crew at WOTC.

I assumed the poster was being sarcastic.


crosswiredmind wrote:
delabarre wrote:
Teh arrogance, it burnz us!
Que?

Old school reference to the revised bard class published in Dragon (or was that Best of Dragon)?

Andoran

Sebastian wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:


I hope the GSL encourages the better publishers to work out a solid closed license so the cream can rise to the top.
Hopefully, the license will be like coach seating in airplanes - designed to be so bad that you want to pay to upgrade to first class. The GSL is so horrible, that you really need to negotiate a private contract with WotC. A real company would be insane to rely on this license for protection. The only companies that would be negotiating such individual contracts would be the ones that could pay royalties, so I guess in a way, the GSL could drive up quality and identify good products. Anyone relying on the GSL is almost certainly going to be of poor quality.

This makes sense, in a vacuum, where the Keep on the Shadowfell doesn't exist. ;)


Sebastian wrote:
Hmmm...crow...yummy...

Pass that bowl over here, would you? I think you're eating some of mine...


Apparently the GSL is one of WOTC many "at will" powers.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
Apparently the GSL is one of WOTC many "at will" powers.

lol nice.

BTW is anyone else getting a weird error where this thread only shows 3 pages of responses? The only way to view posts past 116 is to click on the "last posted to at xx:xx:xx" link.

(My browser is showing stuff like post 151 of 116....

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
Apparently the GSL is one of WOTC many "at will" powers.

Ha! Nice one Eileen.


Nyarlathotep wrote:

BTW is anyone else getting a weird error where this thread only shows 3 pages of responses?

(My browser is showing stuff like post 151 of 116....

Yup, me too. :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Lilith wrote:
Nyarlathotep wrote:

BTW is anyone else getting a weird error where this thread only shows 3 pages of responses?

(My browser is showing stuff like post 151 of 116....

Yup, me too. :)

Strangely, posting seems to have fixed it...

Andoran

Nyarlathotep wrote:
EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
Apparently the GSL is one of WOTC many "at will" powers.

lol nice.

BTW is anyone else getting a weird error where this thread only shows 3 pages of responses? The only way to view posts past 116 is to click on the "last posted to at xx:xx:xx" link.

(My browser is showing stuff like post 151 of 116....

I had the same issue, though I solved it by changing

"http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/4thEdition/gSLPosted &page=3"
to
"http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/4thEdition/gSLPosted &page=4"

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Doombunny wrote:

"They Sue Regularly"

With Wizards of the Coast growing at an explosive rate and beginning to nip at its heels, Williams and TSR began to squeeze the life out of the very market that had supported it. Rather than attempt to grow the marketplace and win in competition, Williams instead tried to banish everybody else from what she apparently viewed as her private domain. Under her management the company began to ruthlessly enforce its own copyrights along with a few it didn't even have (such as a claim that nobody else could use the word "dragon").

It also became incredibly hostile to everyone, especially its fans. As the Internet exploded onto the public consciousness in the early- to mid-90's, Dungeons & Dragons players naturally brought their chosen hobby online. TSR followed them, issuing dozens of cease and desist orders that shut down fan sites. The company even tried to prevent D&D fans from discussing the game in chat rooms and on message boards, earning the derisive nickname: "They Sue Regularly."

The company was hostile to its fans, business partners, and even former associates that didn't have much clout with the company. TSR became infamous for micromanaging its licensing partners, with draconian licensing managers that dictated everything that a licensor could do, from the color of a box to exactly which piece of licensed D&D artwork the licensee would be forced to use. Even Gary Gygax himself wasn't immune. When Gygax created a new RPG system with Game Designer's Workshop called Dangerous Journeys, TSR sued him for copyright infringement. The case was eventually settled when TSR agreed to purchase all rights to...

Need I say "Foreshadowing"?


EileenProphetofIstus wrote:
Apparently the GSL is one of WOTC many "at will" powers.

I think it may be a decade power:

Disenfranchise Allies
Once per decade, when profits are Bloodied, you unleash a flamboyant, yet ineffective illusion of competence, followed by unreasonable restrictions on your allies' ability to assist you. All current allies who have supported you for more than one adventure instantly abandon you to suffer your own self-inflicted doom.

Recharge: After five years of struggling to win back the trust of past allies, 1d6 allies return to aid your quest. Former allies who have been disenfranchised twice will never return.

Miss: Only half of your current allies abandon you, but they never return.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Modules, Tales Subscriber
tadkil wrote:
Fake Healer wrote:

Drow---- "The word is a variant of the Scots term "trow", which itself derives from the Scandinavian word "troll". The original Scottish Gaelic word is pronounced "dtrow" with a soft "dt" sound, and the original pronunciation sounds similar to "troll." The word is also found in Cornish and Welsh, with slight pronunciation differences. The race itself seems based on another dark elf, specifically the Dökkálfar of Norse mythology."

Thank you Wikipedia, but take with a grain of salt.

Hey, it sucked us both in!

Sorry for the threadjack, but there's too many people quoting this Wikipedia article for my pedantic comfort zone.

I'm almost positive there's no such word as "Dökkálfar" in either Old Norse or "Norse mythology". I believe it's meant to suggest "Dark elves", but there was already a real term for that: "Svartálfar" (literally, "black elves"). I've posted on these boards before about this, and how it's quite possible this was really a synonym for dwarves...If anyone is interested in a non-coffee table book on Norse mythology, I'd recommend Rudolf Simek's "Dictionary of Northern Mythology" for you English speakers (or the German original for others) as a starting point. [/threadjack]

151 to 200 of 807 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gaming / D&D 4th Edition (and Beyond) / GSL posted All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.