I know this is a stupid question, but are all the Golgarion Spells not open content? I'm making spell reference cards and wanted to make sure I was in the right as to whether or not to include this. I own all of the Curse of the Crimson Throne Books, and they say the contents are not open. Thanks in advanced.
|
ummmm actually reread that OGL statement again.
Quoted from Edge of Anarchy
Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Game License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), dialogue, plots, storylines, language, concepts, incidents, locations, characters, artwork, and trade dress.
Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above), the contents of this Paizo Publishing game product are Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a
Section 1(d). No portion of this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content may be reproduced in any form without written permission. To learn more about the Open Game License and the d20 System License, please visit wizards.com/d20.
The important parts are bolded.
Is a spell either a trademarks, a proper name (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), or a dialogue, or a plot, or a storyline, is it a language, is it a concept, or an incident, a locations, a character, or is it artwork, or trade dress?
I find the answer to be a spell is none of the above. Therefore according to the OGL statement, it is Open COntent.
Awesome... many thanks.
I think having these as spell cards (minus proper nouns) would hopeful encourage players to explore the adventure paths as well. I'm a big fan of Paizo products, so I'm not going to be trying to steal anyone's thunder.
|
|
spell cards... I know they have already been done by others. I have done condition cards if you are interested in those. Now if I could just remember who did those awesome spellcards!
I know they have been done actually. I've got a project partner through Louis Porter JR Design, I'm wanting to do this with Somatic and Verbal stuff for added game quality. Thought it'd be cool and unique.
Kewl condition cards btw... I've done init cards I'm about to overhaul.
(I'm AKA Wicked K Games)
The confusing part is when a spell/item/whatever includes a proper name in its title or within its mechanics. It makes it harder to tell if its open content or not.
Examples:
Abadar's Truthtelling
Gozreh's Trident
Waters of Lamashtu
Rovagug's Fury
What happens in those cases? The names Abadar, Gozreh, Lamashtu, and Rovagug are certainly Product Identity as they are proper names, but the spells themselves are NOT proper names.
In 3.x WoTC removed all proper names from spells and made them more generic so they could maintain rights to their IP, which is why you no longer see spells like Tensor's Transformation or Mordenkainens Faithful Hound and now instead you have just "Transformation" and "Faithful Hound" etc.
I can see the spells and items being fine to be used as part of the CUP, but I doubt they are genuinely "open content" by the normal definition.
There is a reason why some spells from 3.0/3.5 are not in Pathfinder, and as others have said, they are the ones with the name of the spell's creator in it, such as Melf or Mordenkainen. Any spells created in this same way by Paizo for Pathfinder would also not be Open Content and could not be reproduced without their permission.
While that seems like a very simple solution I just wonder if my understanding is factually correct, which is...
Any [item/spell/feat/whatever] that includes a proper name or other <anything> that is clearly "Product Identity" is NOT "open content."
Said [item/spell/feat/whatever] is usable under the Community Use Policy.
Anyone feel free to correct me if that is not right.
|
While that seems like a very simple solution I just wonder if my understanding is factually correct, which is...
Any [item/spell/feat/whatever] that includes a proper name or other <anything> that is clearly "Product Identity" is NOT "open content."
Said [item/spell/feat/whatever] is usable under the Community Use Policy.
Anyone feel free to correct me if that is not right.
No, the proper name is PI and not open, but the [thing] itself is. So if you have a Golarion feat named "Red Mantis Strike" you can reprint it but you can't include the name "Red Mantis" - for example you can reprint it as "Crimson Insect Strike" or "Bloody Assassin Strike" or whatever floats your boat.
Maybe even "Mantis Strike" would be acceptable, depending this strike on the insect and not the assassins guild of Golarion.
Just so we're clear.. Krome you are saying that to use a spell as "open content" you need to scrub the IP out of the spell then use as desired? That would be my understanding. Another company could not sell a product, billing it as open content, and using Paizo's IP.
Further, my understanding is that no scrubbing of IP is needed if complying with the CUP, as CUP is intended for community use (hence the name) and not for 3pp scenarios.
|
Just so we're clear.. Krome you are saying that to use a spell as "open content" you need to scrub the IP out of the spell then use as desired? That would be my understanding. Another company could not sell a product, billing it as open content, and using Paizo's IP.
Further, my understanding is that no scrubbing of IP is needed if complying with the CUP, as CUP is intended for community use (hence the name) and not for 3pp scenarios.
Yes, that is what Krome is saying. As long as you simply change the name of the spell, you are fine. Does that sound weird? Sure. But that is how you are supposed to do it legally.
|
|
In this thread you can see where Vic states this policy for Paizo.
This way you can see for yourself he said it, look at the context and make your own decisions. :)
Awesome... many thanks again!