| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like the troglodytes are called Xulgaths now. I'm guessing it's so the name can be copyrighted, as "troglodyte" is a pre-existing word found in the dictionary, so you can't copyright it.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are asking this today, of all days?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are asking this today, of all days?
I assume you're referring to the news about the new WotC OGL 1.1, which is attempting to revoke OGL 1.0 and basically ruin table top gaming?
I'm actually surprised we haven't seen threads about this or a statement from Paizo yet.
I would expect Paizo is now going to need to go through and edit all of their works to remove anything covered under OGL (which will be A LOT) to block WotC trying to claim it retroactively.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are asking this today, of all days?
(extremely Godfather voice)
"You come to me, on the day of Kobold Press announcing a new system and Wizards of the Coast announcing a new OGL and ask me to explain...."
Smurf you!
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Giving things distinct identities from their D&D predecessors was a good idea before the currently OGL mess, and an especially appealing one since. That's half the picture.
There's also been a push to get more names that the creatures call themselves (when applicable), rather than the outsider terms; Iruxi over Lizardfolk, Xulgath over Troglodyte, Amurrun over Catfolk, and so on. In many cases, only the outsider term existed in prior canon, and most are used interchangeably (see the term Strix still vastly overshadowing their name, Itarii), so it's just bonus variety.
You are asking this today, of all days?I assume you're referring to the news about the new WotC OGL 1.1, which is attempting to revoke OGL 1.0 and basically ruin table top gaming?
I'm actually surprised we haven't seen threads about this or a statement from Paizo yet.
I would expect Paizo is now going to need to go through and edit all of their works to remove anything covered under OGL (which will be A LOT) to block WotC trying to claim it retroactively.
There’s one thread in Paizo / General. Every other one is getting closed to focus there.
I've actually been wondering this since I noticed the name changes. I've just been too afraid to ask as I was afraid I would look really dumb for not knowing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've actually been wondering this since I noticed the name changes. I've just been too afraid to ask as I was afraid I would look really dumb for not knowing.
Well, you picked a perfect day to finally ask.
But yes, as keftiu said, the main reason is to make the creature more legally distinct in order to avoid copyright problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like the troglodytes are called Xulgaths now. I'm guessing it's so the name can be copyrighted, as "troglodyte" is a pre-existing word found in the dictionary, so you can't copyright it.
Troglodyte may be found in the dictionary, but the definition is not "smelly evil lizard person living underground." I think there's more to intellectual property than just a name. Changing the names, art, and flavor all contribute to making Pathfinder content more distinct and therefore legally defensible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like the troglodytes are called Xulgaths now. I'm guessing it's so the name can be copyrighted, as "troglodyte" is a pre-existing word found in the dictionary, so you can't copyright it.Troglodyte may be found in the dictionary, but the definition is not "smelly evil lizard person living underground." I think there's more to intellectual property than just a name. Changing the names, art, and flavor all contribute to making Pathfinder content more distinct and therefore legally defensible.
Correct, troglodyte the wear isn't IP, but the specific expression of name + "description" is. In the same way that say "Rooster" is a word, but "Rooster's" is a chicken restaurant and has enforceable IP in that space.
I am not a lawyer in contracts or IP, but I expect that all the large TTRP producers are consulting with their lawyers and looking at what they need to change to avoid WotC reach. Regardless of whether or not WotC is successful in what they're trying to do, the best approach is to proactively get rid of anything you can that falls under OGL so that WotC can't even make an attempt. Because they will likely attempt to litigate whatever they think they can win, especially against small producers who wont have the money to fight and win against the behemoth that is WotC/Hasbro.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kinda assumed its the same reason Ive renamed things: when people hear troglodyte or drow or what have you, they have some very specific assumptions about the nature of the creature. I personally dislike a lot of d&d lore due to the colonialist ideology that often shows up in it, so if I want to use something that's especially loaded with assumptions, it's easier to give them a new name and a physical description rather than pulling a "my drow are different"
The dictionary definition of troglodyte means cave-dweller. Thus, in real life it refers to primitive humans or Neanderthals. The Pathfinder xulgath are described as, "Reptilian humanoids who live in the uppermost reaches of the Darklands," so they are cave dwellers from the point of view of surface people, but so are a lot of other subterranean species. "Xulgath" is more precise.
I have been running the PF1 Ironfang Invasion adventure path under PF2 rules, and one module has a mission to caves inhabited by xulgath cultists. But the module called them troglodytes. In my descriptions I translated that to xulgath, since I used the Xulgath Skulkers and Xulgath Warriors from the PF2 Bestiaries. "Xulgath" was both more precise and easier to pronounce.
Another reason to use the newer names is that Pathfinder 2nd Edition has been creating a lot of uncommon playable ancestries that are exotic species, such as azarketi previously called gillmen, catfolk also called amurruns, lizardfolk also called iruxi, and ratfolk also called ysoki. Calling a ysoki character a ratfolk would be like calling a human character a monkeyfolk (an insult I reserve for if my party ever encounters hostile ysoki). Players deserve a dignified species name for their characters. The only troublesome name remaining is halfling, because the obvious alternative "hobbit" is still controlled by the Tolkien estate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only troublesome name remaining is halfling, because the obvious alternative "hobbit" is still controlled by the Tolkien estate.
The Forgotten Realms has them self-label as the hin, which I've always liked.
PF1e largely presented Halflings as the weird little hangers-on of humanity, which I've never liked... and it makes less sense now that distinctly Halfling cultures like the Jaric and Song'o are getting the spotlight. I'd quite like a term they use for themselves.
We also do need a word other than Gnoll for the non-Kholo hyenafolk, just to avoid OGL ire.
We also do need a word other than Gnoll for the non-Kholo hyenafolk, just to avoid OGL ire.
I don't think gnoll is copyrighted either. Warcraft was full of Gnolls.
I like the idea of having two separate names for each culture. One that was bestowed on it by its enemies, and one that they use internally.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think gnoll is copyrighted either. Warcraft was full of Gnolls.We also do need a word other than Gnoll for the non-Kholo hyenafolk, just to avoid OGL ire.
It's not copyrighted, no, but here's a comment from JJ in October talking about how their strong D&D roots causes some potentially hiccups for Gnolls. Having a non-Gnoll name (like Kholo, or something else for the Ancestry as a whole) for them, plus them getting away from always being demonic desert slavers, helps PF2 carve out a niche.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only troublesome name remaining is halfling, because the obvious alternative "hobbit" is still controlled by the Tolkien estate.I've always been a fan of renaming Human to Ling.
No, a ling is what you cross a human with to get a half-ling. Sheesh! ;)
Shouldn't that be a three-quarters-ling?
A giant (large size) + a halfling should make a ling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When two giants love each other very much, you might get a couple-ling.