I very much wanted to have our Kingmaker campaign up on the web so that my players can access the data outside of gametime. That includes maps of the area.
However, I know it isn't acceptable to directly use Paizo artwork, so I built my own Stolen Lands map using CC3, visible from the (surprise) Maps menu on my group's Kingmaker Campaign Site.
So I'm looking for comments, good or bad, as well as to test the waters to make sure I haven't stepped over an IP line before I do the same thing for Brevoy and possibly the River Kingdoms (If this is a violation of Paizo IP, I'll remove it immediately). Comments on the rest of the site are welcome as well (note that I've only tested it in IE, which is all our group is using). The map itself was built with Campaign Cartographer, and the FCW file is also available for download is anyone finds it useful.
There are a few differences between this map and the official ones, most notably the lack of certain names and features. My group doesn't have anyone with Knowledge: Geography, so I see no reason they'd know the names of any but the most important features (or even that some of the rivers are named in this 'unmapped' territory). Also, all mention of Varnhold, Varnhold Pass or the road to Nivatka's crossing have been omitted as they haven't been built yet.
The group has just completed their first session, and I'm hoping this will be a positive resource for them.
Nice!
Feedback:
- Fort Serenko is missing
- even though it is remote, it's tall enough that Mt Branthlend would have its name widely known
- the Tors de Vents would also have their name widely known: you can see them in the distance
- I believe the Mt Branthlend is described as one tall peak, but you have it looking like a range of mountains; this is appropriate for the Tors de Vents, but not for Branthlend
- the blueish green background behind the trees of the forest is the wrong tone IMHO, I would go for something less bright & swampy (also makes it hard to see the rivers going through it)
- those are some aggressive borders that Pitax is pushing, but I can't really say you're wrong (nice use of crown BTW)
- you're missing a town NW of Pitax, I forgot its name (it's on the map in AP#5 and has a (short) writeup there)
What is that face on your compass rose?
|
Paizo can choose to take a position concerning your map in the fullness of time, if it wants to do so.
Paizo is a corporation with 30+ employees and an IP lawyer on retainer. It is well able to assert its legal rights should it feel the need to assert them. I say this, because it isn't up to the community to "help" Paizo enforce its legal rights. Whenever I see someone complaining about these sorts of things online on some discussion forum, I become greatly annoyed. Call it a pet peeve. Why some people choose to intermeddle in legal matters that are not their direct concern annoys the lawyer in me, greatly.
All by way of saying: Paizo will do and say whatever it is that Paizo will choose to do and say, okay? In most cases, they will choose to do and say absolutely nothing. Their position is their own and they don't need any "help" from anybody to decide what it is -- or to express it (or not) as they may see fit. Choosing not to do or say something is itself a very significant business decision. I urge everyone to let Paizo to choose to make those business decisions as they see fit.
Now, in terms of IP rights at law, generally speaking, when it comes to maps it is important to remember that copyright does not protect an idea. It does not generally protect, say, a layout of a dungeon being represented in another form in another art style. That's because the law of copyright protects a particular expression of an idea, but not the idea itself.
With respect to your particular map, the salient issues which it raises are not in relation to the artwork itself, but to the use of the words on the map. While the artistic expression in the pictorial representation of the imaginary place does not appear to be violated by your map, the use of the words upon it (which in this case, also refer to imaginary places), would be, strictly speaking, a violation of copyright. That's at law, mind you.
Please appreciate that Paizo's community use policy, while it is informed by and is shaped by the law, is not "the law". It's their "policy". That's a very, very different thing. They are not the same thing. One is the law; the other is a "position". Big difference between the two.
(I, for one, happen to think that Paizo's Community Use policy is exceptionally generous and I take no issue with it.)
Now, as for what Paizo has to say, in particular, about your map in relation to their Community Use policy, or otherwise? That's for Paizo to say -- and nobody else.
Fair enough?
Note: YES, I am a lawyer authorized to practice in the province of Ontario, Canada, and NO, you should not follow or rely upon any legal advice expressed above for any reason. Any opinion expressed above is made without any warranty of accuracy or fitness for a particular purpose in Ontario or elsewhere. If you want to me to provide you with a legal opinion concerning the laws of Canada in general (and the province of Ontario in particular) that you CAN rely upon and have the consequent right to SUE ME if it's wrong -- you need to pay me for that legal opinion FIRST in order to obtain the RIGHT to sue me for it LATER should such legal opinion prove to be wrong. Where I'm from, we call that fair.
Paizo can choose to take a position concerning your map in the fullness of time, if it wants to do so.
That's a given. The folks at Paizo seem to be reasonably vigilant (and rightly so) about informing people within threads whether they object to a particular use. If they do so, I will as stated immediately remove the offending information. I'm hoping they'll find it acceptable.
Feedback:
- Fort Serenko is missing
Whoops, hadn't noticed that...I based the maps on the folio, and Fort Serenko was left off of it (and I'm noticing now that it is listed as a 'Standard' site instead of a Landmark, which is quite odd. Hmm...I'll drop it in just south of where the Shrike meets the Kiravoy, and blame the rain for why they didn't see it.
A slight border adjustment, and *poof*, Fort Serenko lives :)
- even though it is remote, it's tall enough that Mt Branthlend would have its name widely known
- the Tors de Vents would also have their name widely known: you can see them in the distance
- I believe the Mt Branthlend is described as one tall peak, but you have it looking like a range of mountains; this is appropriate for the Tors de Vents, but not for Branthlend
Good catch on all of the items; exactly the sort of thing I'm looking for...always good to hava a second set of eyes. All are corrected now , presuming Tors de Vents refers to Tors of Levenies.
- the blueish green background behind the trees of the forest is the wrong tone IMHO, I would go for something less bright & swampy (also makes it hard to see the rivers going through it)
Yeah, I'm really not too happy with the color either. I've tried a much darker tone with this iteration.
- those are some aggressive borders that Pitax is pushing, but I can't really say you're wrong (nice use of crown BTW)
- you're missing a town NW of Pitax, I forgot its name (it's on the map in AP#5 and has a (short) writeup there)
I like the Crown...I'll likely use the same marker for the PC's capital once it is built.
The Pitax borders are agressive, but were the closest I could figure based on the map in the Guide to the River Kingdoms, combined with the fact that Rushlight has to be part of Pitax, and the notation that Ilora (of Ilora's Camp-Location H) lives on the outskirts of Pitax. Any claim to effective rulership of Thousand Voices is wishful thinking on Irovetti's part, but no one is disputing it :)Littletown is intentionally left off the map at this point. It's just too insignificant to be on the radar of PCs without more experience in the area or more in the way of knowledge skills. I took the same approach with Rushlight. It'll be important later, but irrelevant now.
What is that face on your compass rose?
Just a generic face really...looks a bit sinister up close, though. :)
Thanks very much for the feedback.
Map looks good, in CC3 can you hide sections of the map?
Map looks good, in CC3 can you hide sections of the map?
Say with a dark, Hex-shaped overlay that could be removed in pieces as the party explores? :) Yes.
That being said, if you are thinking about CC3 as a 'live use game aid', you're overspending. Maptools fills that niche very nicely. Aside from using it at sessions as a battlemap (I am blessed with a 47" HD TV as a monitor where we game), I also took the maps from the Folio, stitched them together, and then used a number of translucent hex-shaped tokens to obscure the details. As the party explores, I remove tokens, and reveal the map 'in-game'.
I'll likely replace my stitched-together version with the CC3-created map, however, since I can edit it to my heart's content between sessions to reflect things that have been learned/discovered, and can add roads and such in a consistent style once they start Kingdom building.
The only potential issue I can see is that you're publishing Paizo IP in the form of location names.
Chief Technical Officer
|
...it isn't up to the community to "help" Paizo enforce its legal rights...
Actually, I appreciate that help, so long as it's done with the spirit of good will. Paizo doesn't have the time to review every product produced under our Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License, much less the time to review every website produced under our Community Use Policy, so we kind of rely on the community itself to tell us when they spot major problems.
As for the map and site discussed here, as I mentioned above, I don't have the time to review things like this in full, but a quick glance suggests that the map would be something that is allowable under our Community Use Policy... except that it (and the rest of the site, as far as I could quickly tell) are missing the attributive language required by the CUP.
Ramarren, just make sure you read through the Community Use Policy and do everything it tells you to do (and don't do anything it tells you not to do).
...and that was remarkably painless. I feel stupid for not looking at the CUP earlier. 10 minutes of quick work, and the site is registered and in compliance.
Thanks :)
Ramarren,
I was thinking more about your map & Pitax's borders.
The boundary lines should only depict what is a "claimed" hex, in order to be consistant. Otherwise, Brevoy would extend much further south than it does, and Varnhold would cover everything east of the Tors (if not more), for example.
Remember that "claimed" implies that you have a Marshal on patrol keeping monsters at bay (to the point where the encounter rate goes from 5%/15% to 1%/5%) and that there are little hamlets and incendental small farms scattered throughout it.
I am quite confident that this does not describe the Forest of Thousand Voices with respect to Pitax. It probably also reduces the reach elsewhere within Glenebon as well (probably drastically).
As the player's get closer to the area, I'll very likely adjust the border to reflect Thousand Voices status as a "no man's land". While the border shown is a fairly close approximation of the one in the River Kingdoms, it seems doubtful he could truly claim it.
As to the rest of the Uplands...Locations L and H are pretty much defined in the text (at least as I'm interpreting it) as being within Pitax's borders, and it seems unlikely that its capital city would be right on the edge of its claimed territory. I was very surprised at the placement of the capital of Pitax so far north, but I've decided to roll with it.
