Mind Flayers in Golarion?

We're seeing the release of the Beastiary 2 this month and have a preview list of the monsters in the book. However, to date, both Beastiary 1 & 2 do not have the Mind Flayer (illithid) listed.

Will we see mind flayers in a future product? Are they still considered OGL material from WotC? Or are they considered a copyrighted material of WotC, and therefore will never be used in a Pathfinder product?

Kevin

The following page has probably the best summation of what monsters are not in the SRD, and thus open, that are in the 3.5 Monster Manual:

d20 SRD FAQ page

We're seeing the release of the Beastiary 2 this month and have a preview list of the monsters in the book. However, to date, both Beastiary 1 & 2 do not have the Mind Flayer (illithid) listed.

Will we see mind flayers in a future product? Are they still considered OGL material from WotC? Or are they considered a copyrighted material of WotC, and therefore will never be used in a Pathfinder product?

Kevin

Mind Flayers, Beholders, Gith, Umber Hulks, and a few others are closed content that Paizo almost certainly won't ever be able to use.

Mindflayers have never been OGL and they are off limits to Paizo. However [shameless plug] there is a certain template in Rite Publishing's Book of Monster Templates you could use to create a similar creature if you desired by adding it to a human or an elf. Even better, as its a template, you could add it to a purple worm, a unicorn, or a humanoid and get all sorts of brain sucking eldritch horrors with which to populate your dungeon depths.

Mind Flayers, Beholders, Gith, Umber Hulks, and a few others are closed content that Paizo almost certainly won't ever be able to use.

And also, members of the Paizo staff have elaborated that in no uncertain terms do they want to do "near misses" that skirt the intent of keeping these monster closed content.

I.e. no floating eyeball monsters or brain eating tentacled humanoid aberrations with different names, for example.

And also, members of the Paizo staff have elaborated that in no uncertain terms do they want to do "near misses" that skirt the intent of keeping these monster closed content.

Really? 'Cause the dudes from Serpent's Skull screamed "Yuan-ti" to me...

Tiny bit of trivia: The very first 3.0 SRD included Mind Flayers. I know this because I used the file to create an NPC on a computer that is now long dead.

KnightErrantJR wrote:

And also, members of the Paizo staff have elaborated that in no uncertain terms do they want to do "near misses" that skirt the intent of keeping these monster closed content.

Really? 'Cause the dudes from Serpent's Skull screamed "Yuan-ti" to me...

That's just cuz the Yaun-ti are such blatant ripoffs of the Serpent People.

KnightErrantJR wrote:

And also, members of the Paizo staff have elaborated that in no uncertain terms do they want to do "near misses" that skirt the intent of keeping these monster closed content.

Really? 'Cause the dudes from Serpent's Skull screamed "Yuan-ti" to me...

Serpent people have been in pulp fantasy since Conan.

Now if those serpentfolk had multiheaded castes and pureblood analouges...

(to be honest, I miss the yuan-ti far more than the illithids. Still have a permanent home in my homebrew though!)

The serpentfolk as they are are really going back to the well that the yuan-ti were pulled from originally. Same thing for the Couerl. Pathfinder can't use the displacer beast, but they certainly can use the original creature the displacer beast was based upon, and they did it with the permission of the original creator's estate. Which is more than can be said for the original displacer beast...

Tiny bit of trivia: The very first 3.0 SRD included Mind Flayers. I know this because I used the file to create an NPC on a computer that is now long dead.

All of the missing monsters were in the original SRD release, but that was a preliminary, not-quite official release. It was part of a "gentleman's agreement", intended to get the material to third parties as early as possible. WotC was up front that they were going to pull back some things as original IP. As I recall, anyways.

(Comparison and contrast with, oh, the GSL release, is left as an exercise for the reader. :-/ )

Now if those serpentfolk had multiheaded castes and pureblood analouges...

Kind of my point here. Serpentfolk are fine, fine as lizardfolk are. But then you add (psychic) powers, castes that reflect how human you look, freakish abominationy breeds...

Not suggesting it's not fair game - merely that the sentiment rings a little hollow. Personally, I'd love to see Paizo's take on tentacled beings from the beyond that can control people's minds. Brain eating: Optional.

Mikaze wrote:

Now if those serpentfolk had multiheaded castes and pureblood analouges...

Kind of my point here. Serpentfolk are fine, fine as lizardfolk are. But then you add (psychic) powers, castes that reflect how human you look, freakish abominationy breeds...

Not suggesting it's not fair game - merely that the sentiment rings a little hollow. Personally, I'd love to see Paizo's take on tentacled beings from the beyond that can control people's minds. Brain eating: Optional.

Intellect Devourers and Denizens of Leng, anyone ?

I think the name ''githyanki'' is free (invented by GRRM)

I think the name ''githyanki'' is free (invented by GRRM)

Gith(something) as astral travelling psionic humanoids with yellowish skin is most certainly a copyright of WotC.

Githyanki as a psionic entities were mentioned in GRR Martin's SF books a few times and were source of orginal (A)D&D githyanki. It would require lawyer's opinion to determine if actually WotC could claim copyrights on them or not and final word would belong to the court anyway. Still it would be too much hassle and expenses to check for most publishers.

Other githfolk are much more clearly WotC copyright.

I am a lawyer - I don't actually work in Intellectual Property, but I focused a lot of my law school studies in IP work. And I can tell you, with absolute certainty, that Wizards of the Coast cannot hold a copyright on the word "githyanki", or "gith(anything)".

Because you cannot copyright words.

You *can* trademark them. Far as I'm aware, WotC has *not* trademarked the word "githyanki", "gith", "githzerai", etc. But they certainly could have - I've honestly never bothered to look.

And leaving the issues of trade dress aside, Wizards could claim to have a copyright on the *idea* of the githyanki/githzerai. That is - a psionic race of humanoids who were former slaves of a vast evil illithid empire, but won their freedom then Declared Two Skies and all that jazz. And in fact, that is I reckon exactly what they'd do if you were to try and use the gith without permission, since they claim it as "product identity." So they *could* try and claim trade dress, or copyright, from them.

I guess my point is - you can't "copyright" the word "gith"(whatever), so no copyright exists. Whether WotC considers it a trade mark, trade dress, or they consider the concept behind the gith a copyright (or, most likely, a combination of the above), however, is another question entirely.

That being said, again, I don't actually practice IP law, and all I just said above I'm remembering from law school. If you want real advice about using githyanki/githzerai/gith in your published work, talk to someone actually actively working in the field who has taken the opportunity to keep himself current. And you aren't paying me for this advice, so assume it's worth the value given.

Why couldn't paizo make a mindflayer in the game when videogames use them like Final Fantasy 1 and Demon's Souls?

Why couldn't paizo make a mindflayer in the game when videogames use them like Final Fantasy 1 and Demon's Souls?

The simplest answer is that it's a legal gray area, and Wizards probably has a lot more lawyers (or the ability to hire a lot more lawyers) than Paizo does.

The more complex answer is that none of the sources you mention - as far as I've seen - actually have "Mind Flayers" the same as D&D does. That is, tentacled beings from the far realm which can mind blast opponents, tentacle lock them, eat their brains, and have a collective conscious LE society ruled by god-brains.

You can have a creature, call it a "mind flayer", and you'd likely be fine. (Though you *are* exposing yourself to liability, and would have to defend yourself in court, if you're publishing RPG books about it.)

You can have a creature with tentacles. You can have creatures from the far realm. You can have creatures with a mind blast like ability. You can have a creature that eats brains. And you can have a creature that has a collective conscious LE society ruled by god-brains.

But once you start stringing any two or more of these together, you start exposing yourself more and more towards the idea of stealing WotC's intellectual property.

Edit: And, actually, I've been remiss in noting that what WotC is essentially threatening isn't an actual Intellectual Property violation - but a licensing violation. Essentially, by identifying something as "product identity", then they're binding any and all third parties who want to use said product identity into playing by their licensing rules. (Although, as far as I remember, their rules are "you can't play", so *any* use of mind flayers/githyanki is likely to be seen, from Wizard's perspective, as a violation of their "license".)

Of course, the problem with that theory is that these licenses - the OGL, GSL, and Paizo's licensing - have never been tested/approved by the Courts. As such, they're kind of a legal dare, and exist at an even bigger gray area than I had originally let on.

So if you want to make some legal history, and either prove WotC correct or free Mind Flayers for use in any game system, go right ahead. But it's going to cost you quite a bit, the courts have ruled in similar licensing schemes against the idea of informational freedom (that is, pro-licensing), and you're likely to lose. So don't say you haven't been warned.

Drack530 wrote:

Why couldn't paizo make a mindflayer in the game when videogames use them like Final Fantasy 1 and Demon's Souls?

The simplest answer is that it's a legal gray area, and Wizards probably has a lot more lawyers (or the ability to hire a lot more lawyers) than Paizo does.

The more complex answer is that none of the sources you mention - as far as I've seen - actually have "Mind Flayers" the same as D&D does. That is, tentacled beings from the far realm which can mind blast opponents, tentacle lock them, eat their brains, and have a collective conscious LE society ruled by god-brains.

You can have a creature, call it a "mind flayer", and you'd likely be fine. (Though you *are* exposing yourself to liability, and would have to defend yourself in court, if you're publishing RPG books about it.)

You can have a creature with tentacles. You can have creatures from the far realm. You can have creatures with a mind blast like ability. You can have a creature that eats brains. And you can have a creature that has a collective conscious LE society ruled by god-brains.

But once you start stringing any two or more of these together, you start exposing yourself more and more towards the idea of stealing WotC's intellectual property.

Demon's Souls mindflayer is called a mindflayer that can mindblast to stun your character and then walks up to and sucks out your brain with its tentacles. It looks just like wizards version of it too.

You can see a picture of it and a description of what it does to you here.

http://demonssouls.wikidot.com/mind-flayer

I think the closest you will get to an official answer, is the fact that Paizo employees still have friends who work at WotC and it is not worth ruffling a few feathers over just a few critters when all the others are obviously fair game. There being so many more monsters to choose from, why bother with "mind flayers" and "Githyanki" when everything else is OGL?

Drack530 wrote:

Why couldn't paizo make a mindflayer in the game when videogames use them like Final Fantasy 1 and Demon's Souls?

The simplest answer is that it's a legal gray area, and Wizards probably has a lot more lawyers (or the ability to hire a lot more lawyers) than Paizo does.

Are you sure they would want to? Most people seem to assume that Paizo would use the monsters if it were legal, but give them some credit for autonomy, innovativeness, and artistic integrity. There is a world of good gaming that doesn't involve those monsters, and I think that Paizo, while maintaining a healthy respect for RPG tradition, also wants to make their own game, not just use someone else's monsters. I don't imagine the designers and developers sitting there in meetings bemoaning their inability to use monsters x and y, when there are, as we have seen, a million other cool things they can do.

Demon's Souls mindflayer is called a mindflayer that can mindblast to stun your character and then walks up to and sucks out your brain with its tentacles. It looks just like wizards version of it too.

You can see a picture of it and a description of what it does to you here.

http://demonssouls.wikidot.com/mind-flayer

Again - legal gray area. And I can guarantee you that Sony Entertainment can out-lawyer Wizards of the Coast at least 10 to 1.

Drack530 wrote:

Demon's Souls mindflayer is called a mindflayer that can mindblast to stun your character and then walks up to and sucks out your brain with its tentacles. It looks just like wizards version of it too.

You can see a picture of it and a description of what it does to you here.

http://demonssouls.wikidot.com/mind-flayer

Again - legal gray area. And I can guarantee you that Sony Entertainment can out-lawyer Wizards of the Coast at least 10 to 1.

lol, ya thats true.

We're seeing the release of the Beastiary 2 this month and have a preview list of the monsters in the book. However, to date, both Beastiary 1 & 2 do not have the Mind Flayer (illithid) listed.

Will we see mind flayers in a future product? Are they still considered OGL material from WotC? Or are they considered a copyrighted material of WotC, and therefore will never be used in a Pathfinder product?

Kevin

While Paizo won't officially use the Mind Flayer, you can just use their Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Conversion Guide (a free pdf from Paizo) to convert it for your own game.

Archmage_Atrus wrote:

Drack530 wrote:

Why couldn't paizo make a mindflayer in the game when videogames use them like Final Fantasy 1 and Demon's Souls?

The simplest answer is that it's a legal gray area, and Wizards probably has a lot more lawyers (or the ability to hire a lot more lawyers) than Paizo does.

Are you sure they would want to? Most people seem to assume that Paizo would use the monsters if it were legal, but give them some credit for autonomy, innovativeness, and artistic integrity. There is a world of good gaming that doesn't involve those monsters, and I think that Paizo, while maintaining a healthy respect for RPG tradition, also wants to make their own game, not just use someone else's monsters. I don't imagine the designers and developers sitting there in meetings bemoaning their inability to use monsters x and y, when there are, as we have seen, a million other cool things they can do.

I was just wondering why. I can always open my old 3.5 books and use a mindflayer if I wanted to.

Are you sure they would want to?

No - but that wasn't really the question asked. I was merely giving the legal reasoning, since I assumed it to be a question about the legalities of the thing, per the discussion that occurred before.

As to whether or not they want to, I can neither say, nor do I honestly care. If I want mind flayers in my Pathfinder game, nothing is stopping me from converting them. The problems only arise if you attempt to publish or profit from your (re)creation. So when someone asks "Why can't a major game publisher publish XXX", the answer must be couched in terms of the legality of the thing.

Brush up on your aboleths. They're often overlooked and do a superb job filling a similar role from a thematic standpoint.

Edit: And, actually, I've been remiss in noting that what WotC is essentially threatening isn't an actual Intellectual Property violation - but a licensing violation. Essentially, by identifying something as "product identity", then they're binding any and all third parties who want to use said product identity into playing by their licensing rules. (Although, as far as I remember, their rules are "you can't play", so *any* use of mind flayers/githyanki is likely to be seen, from Wizard's perspective, as a violation of their "license".)

Of course, the problem with that theory is that these licenses - the OGL, GSL, and Paizo's licensing - have never been tested/approved by the Courts. As such, they're kind of a legal dare, and exist...

Actually, if you look back over the history of the OGL, WOTC traditionally wasn't threatening anything . . . they were saying that, "hey, instead of going into legal pissing contests, how about we say you can use this stuff without any problems, and if you agree to this, you won't touch the stuff we don't want you to touch."

The point of the OGL was much more about WOTC agreeing certain things were fair game than WOTC trying to say things that weren't. It was a pretty cool idea, in all honesty, and I don't want to take anything away from WOTC for the original intent of the OGL.

Again - legal gray area. And I can guarantee you that Sony Entertainment can out-lawyer Wizards of the Coast at least 10 to 1.

Well, if you want to get into legal brief waving at each other between companies, I'm pretty sure if Sony were go great guns on WOTC, Hasbro gets involved, which bumps things into different territory than just Sony versus WOTC.

Actually, if you look back over the history of the OGL, WOTC traditionally wasn't threatening anything . . . they were saying that, "hey, instead of going into legal pissing contests, how about we say you can use this stuff without any problems, and if you agree to this, you won't touch the stuff we don't want you to touch."

The point of the OGL was much more about WOTC agreeing certain things were fair game than WOTC trying to say things that weren't. It was a pretty cool idea, in all honesty, and I don't want to take anything away from WOTC for the original intent of the OGL.

You are correct, from a history/diplomacy perspective. My use of the word "threat" was... imprecise. The threat is there, mind (in fact, it *has* to be there, by law, and I ascribe no malice to it), but the intent was clearly benign, and a boon to the entire industry, in my opinion.

::Erects shrine to Ryan Dancey::

It's easy, unfortunately, to get angry or passionate or just plain worked up that WotC chose to keep a dozen or so of their creations as closed content.

But look at how much they DID open up. Things like the aboleth, the gelatinous cube, the roper, the rust monster, all those demons and devils, etc.

We don't have plans to make "replacements" for mind flayers or beholders. We don't need to. WotC already gave us more than enough to play with, and we've got a heck of a lot more monsters now than that that we're really proud of as well.

As for the serpentfolk... the difference there is that snake people are a pretty generic idea, and one that's been around for a long time. Our primary source of inspiration are the old pulp stories by Robert E. Howard, Lovecraft, and the rest—those are, in fact, the same serpentfolk who inspired Green Ronin to focus on them for the very first non-WotC modules (the Freeport trilogy), and they're also the inspiration for the yuan-ti themselves. It may seem like splitting hairs, but there's a pretty huge difference between taking inspiration from the same source as Gygax did and a simple desire to "replace" a missing race of monsters that WotC didn't release as open content.

COULD we get away with making blatant replacements of things like mind flayers? Possibly. But for Paizo, the question is moot—we don't want to do that. It's not worth the headache, the trouble, and the bad blood... to say the least of avoiding legal entanglements.

So what if the word "githyanki" was invented by George R. R. Martin? So what if the displacer beast was heavily based on A. E. Van Vogt's coeurl? Who cares if the mind flayer looks a bit like Cthulhu? It's not professional to latch onto those types of things and use them as justification to try to steal another company's intellectual property.

In the final analysis... it's just not worth the chance of legal action for us, honestly. We're doing quite fine without mind flayers and kuo-toa. No need to tempt fate to throw Paizo a curve ball in an attempt to rip the rug out from under us. We've been through a fair bit of rug ripping over the past several years already, and it's not fun. I don't need more of it.

I've got an interesting story in relation to this topic....

About two months ago, I went to a book signing by the science fiction author Charles Stross. As you may be aware, Stross created the Githyanki and Githzerai for a contest in the British White Dwarf Magazine back when he was a teenager under the influence of George R.R. Martin. He also created the various Slaads for the same contest.

After the signing was over, I had an opportunity to talk with Charles Stross and mentioned his past involvement with AD&D. I noted the sly inclusion of a Grey Slaad in his novel "Halting State". He laughed and indicated that he was rather hoping that WoTC would try to sue him for copyright infringement for the use of the creature.

He went on to state that WoTC's claim to intellectual property rights over the Gith and the Slaadi is on very shaky legal ground. He pointed out the contract allowing these creatures to appear in the 1e Fiend Folio was with TSR UK - a legally separate entity from parent company in the US. He indicated that the intellectual property rights to these creatures would not have automatically transfered to WoTC when they took over TSR as the US company never had any contracts with the various authors who contributed to the Fiend Folio. Indeed, he suspects that from a legal perspective, ownership of the Gith and Slaadi reverted to him when TSR UK was wound up in the 1980s.

Furthermore, Stross indicated that the agreement allowing his creations to appear in the Fiend Folio did not grant TSR or its successors unlimited anthology rights to reproduce them in each subsequent edition of the game in any case.

He chuckled and wryly stated that he didn't much about how publishing contracts actually worked back when he was a teenager, but has been forced to learn the ropes since he became a professional author.

It's an interesting perspective on the legal status of the creatures that first appeared in the Fiend Folio under the imprint of TSR UK, don't you think? I don't know enough about intellectual property law to judge the merits of his claims, but they certainly sound plausible.

That is indeed a cool story; thanks for sharing!

It's worth pointing out, of course, that if Charles Stross gets in a legal battle with WotC over the use of a gray slaadi, and WotC either wins that legal battle for real or by default simply by outspending Charles Stross on legal fees that Charles suffers the ramifications of his choice.

If Paizo did the same, worst case scenario = several dozen good people losing their job.

Paizo has a responsibility to its employees and its owners to NOT put itself in a position where it might come to that, basically.

One other thought...

When you use any Open Game Content, you agree to be bound fully by the terms of the Open Game License - which potentially implies that you waive any existing rights you may possess to material released under the license (eg: creature names that happen to be in the public domain). In this case, it seems that the terms of the contractual agreement between you and WoTC under the OGL supersede any other rights that you might have to the material released as Open Game Content. Is this an accurate reading of the OGL?

One other thought...

When you use any Open Game Content, you agree to be bound fully by the terms of the Open Game License - which potentially implies that you waive any existing rights you may possess to material released under the license (eg: creature names that happen to be in the public domain). In this case, it seems that the terms of the contractual agreement between you and WoTC under the OGL supersede any other rights that you might have to the material released as Open Game Content. Is this an accurate reading of the OGL?

The OGL is a relatively simple legal document that folks like to overcomplicate, in my experience.

Basically... the OGL only requires you to designate part of your OGL product as open content, and to clearly indicate what OGL sources you used or built upon in making that product. The OGL does not force anyone to give up anything that they don't want to give up—we generally keep our rules open content and our story/flavor content closed, for example.

Paizo has a responsibility to its employees and its owners to NOT put itself in a position where it might come to that, basically.

Agreed. And I reckon that the OGC that *is* readily available gives Paizo enough material for dozens of products :)

Plus there is nothing to stop individual gaming groups from dropping a Mind Flayer or Beholder from the 3.5 Monster Manual into their favourite Paizo module.

In any case, I think that the current situation has forced Paizo to make some bold creative choices. For example, there are some subtle but very neat differences between the Darklands and traditional D&D depictions of the Underdark.

we generally keep our rules open content and our story/flavor content closed, for example.

Paizo is incredibly generous in this area. There is a vast amount of cool Open Game Content contained in various Paizo products. Heck, just look at the sheer amount of cool OGC released in a work such as the Advanced Player's Guide! The declaration in that book makes pretty much everything that is not specific to Golarion available for re-use and expansion by the community. That's just awesome!

I've got an interesting story in relation to this topic....

Yeah, great story. Thanks for sharing, Prime Evil.

::Erects shrine to Ryan Dancey::

Word.

That is indeed a cool story; thanks for sharing!

It's worth pointing out, of course, that if Charles Stross gets in a legal battle with WotC over the use of a gray slaadi, and WotC either wins that legal battle for real or by default simply by outspending Charles Stross on legal fees that Charles suffers the ramifications of his choice.

If Paizo did the same, worst case scenario = several dozen good people losing their job.

Paizo has a responsibility to its employees and its owners to NOT put itself in a position where it might come to that, basically.

I say, let WotC keep their precious Slaadi, the Pathfinder proteans are soooo much cooler anyway. They single handedly got me interested in the chaos planes which had been completely ignored in earlier D&D versions.

And JJ, when is the Pathfinder Epic Level Handbook and Pathfinder Psionics Book coming out?

A good replacement for the Mind Flayer is the Denizen of Leng.

And JJ, when is the Pathfinder Epic Level Handbook and Pathfinder Psionics Book coming out?

Fudgit. Forget this question, I thought this was the ask JJ thread. I'll repost it in the right thread.

A good replacement for the Mind Flayer is the Denizen of Leng.

An even better one might simply be the Star Spawn (or Star Spawn of Cthulhu, or Cthulhui, or a few other basic titles). I'd be VERY surprised if that isn't where the physical depiction of the Illithid race is drawn from as it conforms almost whole cloth to the Star Spawn.

They are left vague enough, other than by description, that you could assign almost aynthing you wanted to to them.

Isshia

Edit: For instance, instead of eating brains they use the tentacles (up the nose or into the mouth, alla Davey Jones in the PoTC III) as a sort of sexual organ and "implant their seed" in this manner. It might allow them to mentally Dominate a victim as well as the victim ultimately serving as an incubator for a new Star Spawn.

I like Ari Marmell's "Phrenic Scourges" in "The Iconic Bestiary: Classics of Fantasy" from Lions Den Press...

But like what has been said before, if I want a Mind Flayer in my home games I just add one...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

Frostflame wrote:

A good replacement for the Mind Flayer is the Denizen of Leng.

An even better one might simply be the Star Spawn (or Star Spawn of Cthulhu, or Cthulhui, or a few other basic titles). I'd be VERY surprised if that isn't where the physical depiction of the Illithid race is drawn from as it conforms almost whole cloth to the Star Spawn.

They are left vague enough, other than by description, that you could assign almost aynthing you wanted to to them.

Isshia

Edit: For instance, instead of eating brains they use the tentacles (up the nose or into the mouth, alla Davey Jones in the PoTC III) as a sort of sexual organ and "implant their seed" in this manner. It might allow them to mentally Dominate a victim as well as the victim ultimately serving as an incubator for a new Star Spawn.

Get rid of the octupus head and give them a weird way to make the implant (something horrific) and that sounds awesome to me.

Dont give them mindblasdt and whatever but the perversion of implanting a seed in the brain just rocks socks to me.

PO ofcourse.

That is indeed a cool story; thanks for sharing!

It's worth pointing out, of course, that if Charles Stross gets in a legal battle with WotC over the use of a gray slaadi, and WotC either wins that legal battle for real or by default simply by outspending Charles Stross on legal fees that Charles suffers the ramifications of his choice.

Well, if it ever comes to it, could someone tell mister Stross that I'd be glad to make a donation, and I'm sure many others would do the same.

So should he ever get legal papers by wotc, he should make an appeal.

James Jacobs wrote:

That is indeed a cool story; thanks for sharing!

It's worth pointing out, of course, that if Charles Stross gets in a legal battle with WotC over the use of a gray slaadi, and WotC either wins that legal battle for real or by default simply by outspending Charles Stross on legal fees that Charles suffers the ramifications of his choice.

Well, if it ever comes to it, could someone tell mister Stross that I'd be glad to make a donation, and I'm sure many others would do the same.

So should he ever get legal papers by wotc, he should make an appeal.

Sign me up as another person willing to donate to the FGI (Free Gith Initiative). :D

Honestly, I'd much rather not open the "Gith" can of worms. From what I've seen in various geek properties regarding ownership of characters and the like, there are often repercussions that no one really expected waiting to jump up and bite people in the ass, and to me its not worth it to test a theory.

In other words, while its highly unlikely, the more WOTC is said not to own, the more its possible it could be said that they also cannot grant to right to use other things in any kind of license. The higher up the legal food chain things go, the more it seems like things you think you know are no longer known, and its not uncommon for for judges to rule that anything that even tangentially touches on those topics have to be on hold.

I say, let WotC keep their precious Slaadi, the Pathfinder proteans are soooo much cooler anyway.

Total agreement with that.

I like the Mind Flayers and Displacer Beasts, and will miss them 'officially,' but the Beholder always struck me as lame (even the explosion loving hippopotamus-men in Spelljammer thought they were silly, and that's the pot calling the kettle black, there!) and the Gith races and the Slaad never did much for me.

Green Ronin's Serpentfolk (or the Scarred Lands Asaatthi) are way, way cooler than the Yuan-Ti, to me.

Of all the stuff that's OGL/closed, the stuff that's most jarring to me is the artwork changes. I loved some of the Lockwood dragons (the black, red, brass, bronze and silver, particularly) from the Monster Manual, and the new appearances are taking longer to grow on me, although I like the Dragons of Golarion looks for the blue and white dragons better.