As I was reading through the "Tome of Horrors Complete," I noticed that the entry for the Stirge Demon said that it was loosely based off of the Chasme Demon. This brought up a question I've wondered before, mostly when looking at unique creatures: why did WotC give permission to create the stats for creatures but require them to have different names or only be referred to by title? They let the demon lord Fraz-Urb'luu retain his name, but Anthraxus, Ygorl, and Ssendam can only be referred to by their titles (Oinodaemon, Slaad Lord of Entropy, and Slaad Lord of the Insane, respectively)? They can have a group of fiends called the "demodands," with all three castes, but can't call the three types farastu, kelubar, and shator? I'm just curious as to why certain names were verboten and some weren't.
(And bringing up the Oinodaemon, were there originally going to be more daemons in the book? The Oinodaemon listing back in Tome of Horrors Revised listed him as being able to summon daemon types not listed in the book: ultrodaemons, arcanadaemons, nycadaemons, yagnodaemons, and mezzodaemons. Had their yugoloth equivalents been released in WotC material by that time?)
As I was reading through the "Tome of Horrors Complete," I noticed that the entry for the Stirge Demon said that it was loosely based off of the Chasme Demon. This brought up a question I've wondered before, mostly when looking at unique creatures: why did WotC give permission to create the stats for creatures but require them to have different names or only be referred to by title? They let the demon lord Fraz-Urb'luu retain his name, but Anthraxus, Ygorl, and Ssendam can only be referred to by their titles (Oinodaemon, Slaad Lord of Entropy, and Slaad Lord of the Insane, respectively)? They can have a group of fiends called the "demodands," with all three castes, but can't call the three types farastu, kelubar, and shator? I'm just curious as to why certain names were verboten and some weren't.
(And bringing up the Oinodaemon, were there originally going to be more daemons in the book? The Oinodaemon listing back in Tome of Horrors Revised listed him as being able to summon daemon types not listed in the book: ultrodaemons, arcanadaemons, nycadaemons, yagnodaemons, and mezzodaemons. Had their yugoloth equivalents been released in WotC material by that time?)
Stats are part of a rules system, which is something that cannot be copyrighted, they have to be patented. The D&D rules system (the d20 system), isn't patented, and the OGL makes it obvious to those that didn't know before, that you can use the rules however you want, because they aren't patented. What you CAN'T use is intellectual property and product identity. There are non-D&D origins to the term Oinodaemon, and thus that isn't IP or PI, but ultrodaemon, farastu, etc. are names given to those monsters by Wizards, those words didn't exist before (that I know of). Basically, if others are allowed to use a name (such as in the Tome of Horrors), WotC didn't come up with it on their own, but if they did come up with it, it's not allowed to be used.
Oh, and yeah, there were a lot of Daemons stats released in the Manual of the Planes, and I think some in the Fiend Folio and MMII.
Stats are part of a rules system, which is something that cannot be copyrighted, they have to be patented. The D&D rules system (the d20 system), isn't patented, and the OGL makes it obvious to those that didn't know before, that you can use the rules however you want, because they aren't patented. What you CAN'T use is intellectual property and product identity. There are non-D&D origins to the term Oinodaemon, and thus that isn't IP or PI, but ultrodaemon, farastu, etc. are names given to those monsters by Wizards, those words didn't exist before (that I know of). Basically, if others are allowed to use a name (such as in the Tome of Horrors), WotC didn't come up with it on their own, but if they did come up with it, it's not allowed to be used.
I didn't know about the word "Oinodaemon" being of non-D&D origin, but I think that "slaad" and "demodand" are from D&D (I've heard the name "demodand" was adapted from a race in a Vance story, but it's not spelled the same). I know that stats can't be copyrighted, nor can basic concepts (just compare the "Demonic Knight" in ToHC to the "Death Knight" in the 1st Ed. Monster Manual), but the credits seem inconsistent. Why credit the "Stirge Demon" as being based off of the "Chasme Demon," but not the "Demonic Knight" based off the "Death Knight?" It looks like the Demonic Knight was created to replace the Death Knight, implying that they didn't get permission to remake a Death Knight. Yet the Stirge Demon specifically mentions the Chasme Demon, implying that permission was given, just not the use of the name.
Then there's the question of why they could use the name "Fraz-Urb'luu"...
My recollection is likely skewed, but this thread sparked a memory. Back in the halcyon days of twenty 'aught two, the Book of Vile Darkness had just come out and as an owner of the original Tome of Horrors hardback, I asked Necromancer Games the question of duplicate demon lords and varying statistics between the two publications. I seem to remember Necromancer Games mentioning that prior to the publication of ToH, they reached an agreement with Wizards of the Coast allowing them to go ahead with some key monsters and personalities from previous editions of D&D.
I believe this agreement stemmed from WotC's desire to not explore those key creatures and personalities for 3rd edition D&D or something, and Necromancer Games were very keen to see these old school factors not only survive into 3rd edition, but prosper. I guess at some point, Wizards changed their mind and went ahead with their own versions.
NOTE: I have no way of backing this up and my memory is not what it used to be. I am sure Clark P. or Bill W. could answer this for you.
Just be glad that TSR didn't copyright the class names "fighter," "cleric", and "mage". Ask one of the graybeards about the fight TSR had with the estate of J.R.R. Tolkein sometime - and count yourself lucky that you don't have to say, "I put on my circular metal band of feather falling!"
I'm pretty sure the Tolkien estate wouldn't win that one in any court. Otherwise they'd have to put their lawyers up against Funk & Wagnalls, Oxford, and every other publisher of dictionaries, not to mention the precedent for magic rings set up in mythology, which is where J.R.R. was sourcing from in the first place.
Getting back to the complete tome and names, my main concern is all the repetition of creatures now that Pathfinder has expanded their bestiary collection. A lot of the monsters in the Tome of Horrors have become redundant now that there are PF versions of the monsters.
Getting back to the complete tome and names, my main concern is all the repetition of creatures now that Pathfinder has expanded their bestiary collection. A lot of the monsters in the Tome of Horrors have become redundant now that there are PF versions of the monsters.
Unless, of course, you consider them to be variants of the same concept, and use one version as an alternative. "The locals called these Rock Trolls, but they're very different than the sort you've faced before," etc.
For the 4WFG Tome of Monsters we had that problem with several of our creatures - the leprechaun, redcap, and wendigo all appeared in the Bestiary 2, and were quite different than the version I developed. I don't see a problem with that; in different places the creatures might not be the same as always. It's a nice curveball to deal with a cocky party who thinks they know exactly what they're facing and make it a challenge again.
For the 4WFG Tome of Monsters we had that problem with several of our creatures - the leprechaun, redcap, and wendigo all appeared in the Bestiary 2, and were quite different than the version I developed. I don't see a problem with that; in different places the creatures might not be the same as always. It's a nice curveball to deal with a cocky party who thinks they know exactly what they're facing and make it a challenge again.
Hmm...subspecies. I like that idea. A couple of my players may cry foul, but I'll just tell them they failed their Knowledge(whatever) roll.
"Hey, they look pretty much the same unless you check under the tail, and no one said they were doing that."
Just be glad that TSR didn't copyright the class names "fighter," "cleric", and "mage". Ask one of the graybeards about the fight TSR had with the estate of J.R.R. Tolkein sometime - and count yourself lucky that you don't have to say, "I put on my circular metal band of feather falling!"I'm pretty sure the Tolkien estate wouldn't win that one in any court. Otherwise they'd have to put their lawyers up against Funk & Wagnalls, Oxford, and every other publisher of dictionaries, not to mention the precedent for magic rings set up in mythology, which is where J.R.R. was sourcing from in the first place.
Getting back to the complete tome and names, my main concern is all the repetition of creatures now that Pathfinder has expanded their bestiary collection. A lot of the monsters in the Tome of Horrors have become redundant now that there are PF versions of the monsters.
The overlap (because Paizo updated creatures for the original Tome of Horrors series) isn't as much as you're making it out to be. I think that the count is somewhere between 30 and 40 monsters (many of which aren't identical to what was done in the Paizo Bestiaries so can be considered a variant of the monster). Keep in mind that you still have 700 monsters which weren't converted by Paizo.
To address part of your original question, WotC did give Clark special permission in some instances, but some of what you mentioned are in the public domain. I'm not sure about certain particulars, but names like "Orcus" and such cannot be copywritten (nor can "Hades", "Zeus", etc.)
Just be glad that TSR didn't copyright the class names "fighter," "cleric", and "mage". Ask one of the graybeards about the fight TSR had with the estate of J.R.R. Tolkein sometime - and count yourself lucky that you don't have to say, "I put on my circular metal band of feather falling!"
That wasn't their decision to make (or WotC's) based off of the simple fact that you cannot copyright words.
In your example, that fight would be ridiculous. You can't copyright the word "ring", but I'll bet the Tolkein estate has the phrase "The One Ring" held in copyright.
Ssendam? Really? That is protected?
What about his friends? You know, Cinam Tib A, Yzarc Tiuq, Enasni Yllatot and, of course, their supreme ruler, Tihstab Yletelpmoc?
Just be glad that TSR didn't copyright the class names "fighter," "cleric", and "mage".
I hear they once tried to do that with "dragon". Apparently, they had a particularly dislikeable boss once.
Ssendam? Really? That is protected?
What about his friends? You know, Cinam Tib A, Yzarc Tiuq, Enasni Yllatot and, of course, their supreme ruler, Tihstab Yletelpmoc?
...
I know you weren't serious, but thank you. I only just now saw how they got Ssendam as a name. Though considering several of the other names used in the older editions, it should of been obvious.
Shadowborn, Chuck Wright - the actual fight I was referring to wasn't over the use of 'ring'. I was using that in humorous reference to an old comic strip. The original dispute between Tolkien's estate and TSR (which was then a small weak company) was whether they had the right to have "halflings" in D&D without paying the Professor's heirs a cut.
As far as not being able to copyright the words themselves, of course not! Otherwise I'd have already copyrighted the word "the" and all of you would owe me all the money. The point of the post was to point out the absurdity of complicated legal squabbles over the names of imaginary monsters. Next time just shake your head and move on!
Hey! How was I to know you weren't being serious. You've seen some of what is posted on the interwebs before, haven't ya?
;)
Actually, the stirge demon was not based on the chasme at all. Clark just has a thing for stirges--seriously. The stirge demon was designed to torment me, John M. (Speigle), Dale (Flail), Ian (Helman) and Pearson (Frac) when Clark took a turn at DMing in about 1986.
Sounds like Clark and I have some similarities when it comes to sitting behind the screen.
"Why yes, that is a blackguard mindflayer with a beholder mount. Roll initiative."
Ssendam? Really? That is protected?
What about his friends? You know, Cinam Tib A, Yzarc Tiuq, Enasni Yllatot and, of course, their supreme ruler, Tihstab Yletelpmoc?
...
I know you weren't serious, but thank you. I only just now saw how they got Ssendam as a name. Though considering several of the other names used in the older editions, it should of been obvious.
At your service. Teaching things by making fun of them since 19-something ;-)
By the way, two esses at the start of a name are always a dead giveaway. :D
And seeing how often it is used, I almost made it a habit to check whether things that sound the least bit suspicious aren't just backwards. I'm looking at you, Alucard.
I greatly annoyed a GM when I quickly caught on to his major NPC "Natas Ino" (though that one was so easy the whole group saw through it at once. GM suddenly felt a lot less smart and innovative :D)
And seeing how often it is used
Yeah, tell me about it. People are just silly.
By the way, two esses at the start of a name are always a dead giveaway. :D
Unless it's a yuan-ti/ophidian/snake-person.
By the way, two esses at the start of a name are always a dead giveaway. :DUnless it's a yuan-ti/ophidian/snake-person.
No, because they actually use it all the time. They think that makes them clever, the snaky bastards.