|
Gygax originally created 6 demons: Type I: Vrock, Type II: Hezrou, Type III: Glabrezu, Type IV: Nalfeshnee, Type V: Marilith and Type VI: Balrog.
But the Tolkien estate (or whomever) wouldn't allow him to use "Balrog" (or Ent or Hobbit, etc.).
So Gygax, still wanting an uber powerful, pure Chaos Demon, tearfully put aside the Balrog and decided to make the King of the Formorian Giants, Balor, his Type VI demon, balor.
But for me, well, Balor is a proper name, the name of the Demon Lord / King of the Fomorian Giants -- rival of Kostchtchie, murderer of Surtur.
And I like that Type VI demons are Balrogs.
Question: Is "Balrog" still a "No way, No how" monster for Pathfinder, or is it possible we'll be able to see a Balrog in our beloved game?
Tolkien's estate lawyers didn't let up twenty odd years ago, they sure aren't going to now with award-winning movies, multiple video games, action figures, board games, wedding rings, and the like. Oh, and that series of books.
Balrog is copyrighted, insofar as a a flaming demonic entity of smoke and shadow, armed with a whip and a sword. Unfortunately, Gygax was in the wrong in this case, innocent of malicious intent perhaps, but still in the wrong. Copyright law existed back when Gygax named the demons, and while he may have thought of it as an amusing nod, a wispy tangential reference to LotR, it could also easily be seen, and held up in court, as him trying to profit in some way off of a creation of Tolkien.
To have a Balrog in Pathfinder would require it to be unlike the one in Tolkien (like the boxing character in the American release of the Street Fighter video games). Which defeats the point of the referential nod, which is really the only reason it's wanted in the first place.
tl;dr = No, no Balrogs in Pathfinder.
To have a Balrog in Pathfinder would require it to be unlike the one in Tolkien (like the boxing character in the American release of the Street Fighter video games). Which defeats the point of the referential nod, which is really the only reason it's wanted in the first place.
Small bit of trivia- the boxing character in Street Fighter was actually not originally named Balrog- Balrog was the name of the claw-wielding masked fighter from Spain, more commonly known as Vega. The character originally called Vega was the red suit-wearing individual we all know and hate named M. Bison- whose current name originally belonged to the boxing fighter now called Balrog. The reason for the change? The African-American boxer M. Bison was (fairly bluntly) named after a certain other African-American boxer named M. Tyson (Mike, obviously). However, for legal issues and a desire to disassociate themselves with the fallen-from-grace boxer, they switched some of the names around.
Back on topic- go ahead and call Balors Balrogs. The copyright police won't come and break down your door and hand you a cease and desist order for something in your personal game. But, unfortunately, not in anything official.
|
|
Oh Dude, I've been calling 'em Balrogs in my games for years. Nay, decades. And I've had Balor and Kostchtchie waring amongst each other in my Homebrew cosmology since I learned Balor was the King / God of Fomorians about 10 years ago -- though it's only shown up in one of my Campaigns once, and not as the main thingy. (You know how it is, we have far more adventure ideas than time to run adventures.)
I just was hoping Pathfinder could somehow put out Balrogs. I dunno, maybe like the Jabberwock and stuff.
Jabberwocky is public domain since 1968 (or something like that). It will take a lot of time until Balrogs will end in public domain (any potential extending IP rights coming in the future not withstanding).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the current copyright law in the US is set at the lifetime of the author/owner plus 100 years after his/her death for the estate. Personally I think the lawyers have gone off the deep end again in saying that much time is required before it hits the public domain... but it is what it is.
So you can plan on that being off limits until September 3rd 2073 at 1201 AM.
But I am not a lawyer or anything so take that with a grain of Google Salt. :)
Interesting SF trivia. I never got the M. Bison name before. Though the idea of a Bisonic peace is awesome. :-)
Thing is, the original question deals with the names of the type I to VI demons in the 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual, right? If so, the names of the creatures were examples of the type. I.e. There was one type V demon who was called Marilith.
Then when the DnD is Evil scare got Lorraine Williams and the crowd to make the demons tanar'ri, they chose one of those names and made that the official name for the creature type. Anyone remember the other type V demon names?
Gygax originally created 6 demons: Type I: Vrock, Type II: Hezrou, Type III: Glabrezu, Type IV: Nalfeshnee, Type V: Marilith and Type VI: Balrog.
But the Tolkien estate (or whomever) wouldn't allow him to use "Balrog" (or Ent or Hobbit, etc.).
So Gygax, still wanting an uber powerful, pure Chaos Demon, tearfully put aside the Balrog and decided to make the King of the Formorian Giants, Balor, his Type VI demon, balor.
But for me, well, Balor is a proper name, the name of the Demon Lord / King of the Fomorian Giants -- rival of Kostchtchie, murderer of Surtur.
And I like that Type VI demons are Balrogs.
Question: Is "Balrog" still a "No way, No how" monster for Pathfinder, or is it possible we'll be able to see a Balrog in our beloved game?
Thing is... "Balrog" is his proper name as well. So if you can accept one you should be able to accept the other. <grin>
But I doubt that the Tolkein estate wouldn't go orangutang-poo if Pathfinder challenged the copyright by using the name. "Balrog" is still a money-making commodity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting SF trivia. I never got the M. Bison name before. Though the idea of a Bisonic peace is awesome. :-)
Thing is, the original question deals with the names of the type I to VI demons in the 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual, right? If so, the names of the creatures were examples of the type. I.e. There was one type V demon who was called Marilith.
Then when the DnD is Evil scare got Lorraine Williams and the crowd to make the demons tanar'ri, they chose one of those names and made that the official name for the creature type. Anyone remember the other type V demon names?
It took some digging on the intertubes, but I did find this page that lists quite a few Type VI names (and I presume other types on their own pages as well).
Alamanda[11]
Aishapra, the Marilith Dervish[12]
Baltoi: The Sleeping Beast from Van Richten's Guide to Fiends[13]Byakala: an advanced marilith with the Smoking Eye template, found in The Shackled City.[14]
The Cathezar:Half-Chain Devil/Half-Marilith, originally a servant of Demogorgon/Aameul; depending on events, she may be either dead or serve Ammet the balor now.[15]
Gorzaug: Minion of Takhisis, treated "as a Type V demon for combat purposes", but without gating-in ability.[16]
Jaranda[17]
Kaliva: a vassal of the marilith demon lord Shaktari, born as a human and raised by an evil duke. She spurned the advances of a wizard, who shapechanged her into a rutterkin and banished her to the Abyss. Eventually her intelligence and fighting skills enabled her to become a marilith.[18]
Kalistes: One of Bane's underling in the computer game Pools of Darkness. In the game she commands a large army consisting of drow and spiders, and possesses the Ring of Reversal which steals the sun. She hides in an infernal demiplane called Kalistes's Palace. She does not cast spells, but attacks six times in a round with all hands, each wielding a +4 weapon.
Lillianth[19]
Morag: A non-evil marilith who was bound to serve Lolth, she now travels with the Justicar and his friends.[20]
Riza[21]
Shaktari: known as the Queen of Poison, Shaktari is a giant marilith who rules Vudra, the 531st layer of the Abyss. She has flaming eyes and black skin.[18] She was once banished to the Wells of Darkness, but escaped. As of third edition, Shaktari claims rulership of all mariliths.
Shesinellek[19]
Stentka Taran: Beshaba's general.[22]Taramanda[11]
Unhath and Reluhantis: servants of Graz'zt who rule his realm in his absence, listed in Book of Vile Darkness. Unhath and Reluhantis are 6th level sorcerers.
Viractuth: the demon lord Rhyxali's second in command, Viractuth is a 5th level marilith sorcerer. She organizes the knowledge gathered by Rhyxali's shadow demons and lives in a huge library filled with tomes only she can read.[23]
Yxunomei: middle boss - Found in the game Icewind Dale in the deep bowels of Dragon's Eye.
If you go to the wikipedia entry it has references. (I noticed that a couple of the named one weren't from 1st Edition, for example.)
Bah... Type V demons.
But for me, well, Balor is a proper name, the name of the Demon Lord / King of the Fomorian Giants -- rival of Kostchtchie, murderer of Surtur.
If you don't like using proper names for generic monsters, what do you call medusas?
But for me, well, Balor is a proper name, the name of the Demon Lord / King of the Fomorian Giants -- rival of Kostchtchie, murderer of Surtur.If you don't like using proper names for generic monsters, what do you call medusas?
*shameless plug*
True Gorgons! (See Tome of Horrors Complete)
But for me, well, Balor is a proper name, the name of the Demon Lord / King of the Fomorian Giants -- rival of Kostchtchie, murderer of Surtur.If you don't like using proper names for generic monsters, what do you call medusas?*shameless plug*
True Gorgons! (See Tome of Horrors Complete)
So you call medusas "true gorgons" and there's also a separate creature called "true gorgons" and a separate creature called "gorgons"? Isn't that confusing?
3 points:
1: Balrog is NOT a proper name of an individual, it is atype of demon from the days of yore.
2: Tolkien originally intened his works to kick start their own mythology (which they kinda did with D&D) While his estate has been stingy with the copyrights I'm pretty sure he would have prefered that
the types of creatures be public domain.
3: US copyright law is basically continually redefined so as to be longer and longer. Disney spends a lot of money to ensure that however long the time is, Mickey Mouse never falls outside it.
I believe the current copyright law in the US is set at the lifetime of the author/owner plus 100 years after his/her death for the estate. Personally I think the lawyers have gone off the deep end again in saying that much time is required before it hits the public domain... but it is what it is.
They increased it to +100 years from previous (and international) +70?
|
|
Yeah, I always thought "Balrog" was a kind of uber powerful monster -- not a single individual, very rare, of course -- but not unique. (But what the hell do I know. Either Gwyrdallan or Chuck could be right.) If Balrog actually is an individual it would suck for my Homebrew for about 5 minutes -- 'till it takes me to think of another appropriate Type VI. Since none of it is published it doesn't really matter.
*blink*
|
|
Medusa....
I have this thing where I just HATE pretty much EVERYTHING from Greek myth in D&D. No Erinyes in my games. No Geryon. Etc.
I teach quite a bit of Greek Humanities, including a tremendous amount of myth, and it just shatters any verisimilitude I have in D&D when something from Greek myth shows up in D&D. It just doesn't fit together in my head.
EXCEPT Medusa for some odd reason.
I have no idea why Medusa from myth doesn't bug me as a generic "species" of monstrous humanoid in D&D. (Oh, Medusa and Centaurs.)
I think it's cuz of the illustration in the '77 Monster Manual -- far and away the greatest medusa illustration in D&D history. (No other medusa, D&D illustration comes close to the first.)
But whatever, medusae don't bother me.
Can't explain.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
According to The Complete Guide To Middle-Earth from The Hobbit to the Silmarilion Balrogs (sindarin for "power-terror" or "demon of might") were Maiar who joined Melkor when he rebelled against Eru. They were spirits of fire but were cloaked in shadow, their leader was Gothmog. Most of Balrogs perished during the Great Battle that ended the First Age. A few survived and hidden deep underground. Dwarves building Khazad-dum unearthed one of them - later known as Durin's Bane and the Balrog (as he was sole known Balrog of Third Age).
Their Queneya name was Valaraukar (singular Valarauko).
So you call medusas "true gorgons" and there's also a separate creature called "true gorgons" and a separate creature called "gorgons"? Isn't that confusing?But for me, well, Balor is a proper name, the name of the Demon Lord / King of the Fomorian Giants -- rival of Kostchtchie, murderer of Surtur.If you don't like using proper names for generic monsters, what do you call medusas?*shameless plug*
True Gorgons! (See Tome of Horrors Complete)
*blink*
What?
Dude - True Gorgons were created by Scott Greene in the original Tome of Horrors. They cover Medusa and her sisters. The creatures that were originally called "Gorgons".
The only thing confusing about it is the way you confused it on purpose for some reason.
According to The Complete Guide To Middle-Earth from The Hobbit to the Silmarilion Balrogs (sindarin for "power-terror" or "demon of might") were Maiar who joined Melkor when he rebelled against Eru. They were spirits of fire but were cloaked in shadow, their leader was Gothmog. Most of Balrogs perished during the Great Battle that ended the First Age. A few survived and hidden deep underground. Dwarves building Khazad-dum unearthed one of them - later known as Durin's Bane and the Balrog (as he was sole known Balrog of Third Age).
Their Queneya name was Valaraukar (singular Valarauko).
Thanks for clearing that up. I really thought it was the proper name of a specific fallen Maiar.
Interesting SF trivia. I never got the M. Bison name before. Though the idea of a Bisonic peace is awesome. :-)
Thing is, the original question deals with the names of the type I to VI demons in the 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual, right? If so, the names of the creatures were examples of the type. I.e. There was one type V demon who was called Marilith.
Then when the DnD is Evil scare got Lorraine Williams and the crowd to make the demons tanar'ri, they chose one of those names and made that the official name for the creature type. Anyone remember the other type V demon names?
Exactly..the names we have come to know and love were intended to be an example of a demons true name..there was only on Vrock, all other type I's had their own name and a "soul amulet". Balor/Balrog was just a infamous type VI.
Palladium Books has Balrog demons.
I don't think it's a legal issue ... it may have been back then, but not anymore. Now it's just a matter of consistency.
And BTW, the bull-like "Gorgon" should be Catoblepas ... well, really it shouldn't be any monster, because the concept was stolen from a wandering priest's bad description of a Gnu.
The "medusa" should be the "mortal gorgon". True Gorgons were immortal sisters who had wings and claws, plus the snakes & gaze thing.
Exactly..the names we have come to know and love were intended to be an example of a demons true name..there was only on Vrock, all other type I's had their own name and a "soul amulet". Balor/Balrog was just a infamous type VI.Interesting SF trivia. I never got the M. Bison name before. Though the idea of a Bisonic peace is awesome. :-)
Thing is, the original question deals with the names of the type I to VI demons in the 1st edition AD&D Monster Manual, right? If so, the names of the creatures were examples of the type. I.e. There was one type V demon who was called Marilith.
Then when the DnD is Evil scare got Lorraine Williams and the crowd to make the demons tanar'ri, they chose one of those names and made that the official name for the creature type. Anyone remember the other type V demon names?
I'm looking at the original MM now. It specifically states which Types have names. Mention of names doesn't occur until Type IV demons. This also coincides with the parenthetical names following the "Type IV (Nalfeshnee, etc.)" format. Prior to that entry, there is no "etc."
This leads me to believe that Type 1, 2, and 3 demons didn't have their own names.
That strikes a chord, yes. What were the names for the higher demons?
Type IV (Nalfeshnee, etc.)
Type V (Marilith, etc.)
Type VI (Balor, etc.)
The Balrog's proper name in LotR is never given, it is refered to as Durin's Bane, which as close to a name as it gets. The only examples given of exact Balrog names are Golgmoth (Lord of all Balrogs) and Lungorthin (a Balrog Lord).
This copyright thing is a strange thing.
Really, Balor looks and acts 100% the same as Balrog, so they only laid property to the name+appearance COMBINATION, not to the demons appearance... as gladly the Balor is still there and looks 100% the same as Balrog, it just holds another name and has no shadow stuff going on in most its pictures.
This makes me wonder, if you take the Julajimus (your own creation) back into the game by simlpy giving the creature another name, that would be legal as that is what was done with one of Tolkiens pearls (balor/balrog treant/ent hobbit/halfling) aswel.
PS. Diablo II used BALROG demons and they looked pretty close to the original one, except for their weapons and shadow thing, that was probably legal yes?
and why would a dead-man be interested in keeping balrog copyrighted? Isn't it much better that people see balrogs an ents in all kinds of other games so they remember them and keep buying LOTR products because they remember it through other products/movies/games? What profit does it hold to keep things copyrighted? Just ask people to mention your name as creator and sew the ones that don't give you credit, both sides make profit and live.
|
This copyright thing is a strange thing.
Really, Balor looks and acts 100% the same as Balrog, so they only laid property to the name+appearance COMBINATION, not to the demons appearance... as gladly the Balor is still there and looks 100% the same as Balrog, it just holds another name and has no shadow stuff going on in most its pictures.
This makes me wonder, if you take the Julajimus (your own creation) back into the game by simlpy giving the creature another name, that would be legal as that is what was done with one of Tolkiens pearls (balor/balrog treant/ent hobbit/halfling) aswel.
PS. Diablo II used BALROG demons and they looked pretty close to the original one, except for their weapons and shadow thing, that was probably legal yes?
and why would a dead-man be interested in keeping balrog copyrighted? Isn't it much better that people see balrogs an ents in all kinds of other games so they remember them and keep buying LOTR products because they remember it through other products/movies/games? What profit does it hold to keep things copyrighted? Just ask people to mention your name as creator and sew the ones that don't give you credit, both sides make profit and live.
You go and tell Walt Disney Co. that we should all be able to share the joy of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. And while at it, say "hi" to Sonny Bono from me.
I'd love to hear how the conversations went. :-)
I think there is a small difference in characters that give a face to a company and just monsters which can form armies and are battled by the heroes.
Copyright Legolas, Treebeard, Gandalf, Frodo and all such characters, but release the Balrog, Ent and Hobbit (race) from the hell called copyright, especially because its from so long ago...
The Diablo 2 Balrogs spell it differently: Baalrog, I think.
Lol, well in that way you can just copy about everything by just changeing the spelling of the creatures. Neoogi, beeholder, Mind Flaayer, Umbeer Huulk.
:p
1st edition of Warhammer Role Play had "Baalrukh" demons. They weren't clothed in shadows, nope and I don't remember if they were fire demons or not but I think that they had a whip.
RE: Altered Spelling of D&D Non-Open Monsters:
Actually, the reason that the Balrog/Baalrog gambit works is because Tolkien never provided explicit and specific combat statistics or similar expressions, so as long as Baalrog is substantively different enough from the Balrog depicted in Tolkien's work, it's not infringement.
With the classic D&D monsters, on the other hand, since their names *and* their combat statistics, strategies, ecologies, tactics, and overall mechanical implementations are all covered by copyright, in order to develop Pathfinder implementations of these monsters, not only the names but also the abilities and pretty much everything that makes the monsters recognizable and unique would need to be changed, which pretty much defeats the purpose.
Which is sad.