Drawing Symbols And The Aggravation of Conflicting Info!
Terraformer_Author
Newcomer
Ok, here's my beef...
Before I draw some of my symbols for my symbol sets that I am TRYING to build - depending on what they are - sometimes I have to do research to find out if I'm doing it "accurately". Well - I followed Wizards Of The Coast's description of a "Kobold" on their d20 Monsters page (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/monsters.htm) to draw the symbol that you see below, granted.
Well - I was poking around and noticed that other sources have Kobolds having contradictory characteristics to Wizard's definition. They (Wizards) say that they have "Ruddy reddish brown to reddish black skin / hide color - but after doing a Yahoo search of "Kobold" - as referenced from Yahoo's image search pages - I'm finding all kinds of Kobolds that don't match WOTC's definition - including the Green copy left nightmare compared below to my "Wizards Accurate" version - that I have also attatched. This thing looks nothing like a Kobold - but more accurately resembles either a Gremlin, or a shoemaker's elf with a bad case of food poisoning.
QUESTION: WHAT'S THE BEST SOURCE FOR ACCURATE INFO? Should I stick with the Wizards Definition, or try to find an historical mythological version or equivalent? Does Wizard's definition match the original description in the older TSR books, (because it's been so long that I don't remember), and if it doesn't - should I go with TSR's original description (if I can ever track it down again)? Below is an example of the confusion.
Does it really matter if I get it right or not - should it?
P.S. - I was working from WOTC's text description - NOT the image in their new Monster Manual (I wanted to keep traditional - yet draw my intrepation as I saw it in my mind from the text.)
Is there a canon, or an orthadoxy that I should be sticking to here - because I need universally consistant "across the board" details on some of these ("generic versions" if you will).
A LOT of D&D / AD&D monsters and races appear in a wide variety of DIFFERENT gaming systems that are NOT TSR or Wizards Of The Coast creations, and have really no relation to them or have little or nothing to do with them. I can off the bat think of a few of them including the OSRIC (Loosely based on old, original TSR rules - reduced to their bare bones principles) and OGRE.
Before I draw some of my symbols for my symbol sets that I am TRYING to build - depending on what they are - sometimes I have to do research to find out if I'm doing it "accurately". Well - I followed Wizards Of The Coast's description of a "Kobold" on their d20 Monsters page (http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/monsters.htm) to draw the symbol that you see below, granted.
Well - I was poking around and noticed that other sources have Kobolds having contradictory characteristics to Wizard's definition. They (Wizards) say that they have "Ruddy reddish brown to reddish black skin / hide color - but after doing a Yahoo search of "Kobold" - as referenced from Yahoo's image search pages - I'm finding all kinds of Kobolds that don't match WOTC's definition - including the Green copy left nightmare compared below to my "Wizards Accurate" version - that I have also attatched. This thing looks nothing like a Kobold - but more accurately resembles either a Gremlin, or a shoemaker's elf with a bad case of food poisoning.
QUESTION: WHAT'S THE BEST SOURCE FOR ACCURATE INFO? Should I stick with the Wizards Definition, or try to find an historical mythological version or equivalent? Does Wizard's definition match the original description in the older TSR books, (because it's been so long that I don't remember), and if it doesn't - should I go with TSR's original description (if I can ever track it down again)? Below is an example of the confusion.
Does it really matter if I get it right or not - should it?
P.S. - I was working from WOTC's text description - NOT the image in their new Monster Manual (I wanted to keep traditional - yet draw my intrepation as I saw it in my mind from the text.)
Is there a canon, or an orthadoxy that I should be sticking to here - because I need universally consistant "across the board" details on some of these ("generic versions" if you will).
A LOT of D&D / AD&D monsters and races appear in a wide variety of DIFFERENT gaming systems that are NOT TSR or Wizards Of The Coast creations, and have really no relation to them or have little or nothing to do with them. I can off the bat think of a few of them including the OSRIC (Loosely based on old, original TSR rules - reduced to their bare bones principles) and OGRE.
Comments
But I don't think the relaxed smoker works either...
:-)
Some characters I CANNOT touch - because Wizards claims strict exclusivity - for example - I can't draw and include a "Beholder" or a "Displacer Beast" because these are characters that were completely contrived by TSR (now owned by WOTC), and is not based upon an amalgamation of historical mythologies and borrowed bits and pieces of folklore like most of the other characters / monsters / races covered by the OGL. Wizards would never dare to slap an exclusive intellectual property right on the concept, nor design of Elves for example - otherwise everybody from the Tolkien estate - to the entire country of Norway would chew them up and spit them out like a wad of Mint Flavored Copenhagen.
For instance - if they ever tried to claim the definitions, descriptions, or terms "Angels", "Devas", "Demons", or "Devils" as an exclusive intellectual property, everybody would sue them - and they'de probably get a phone call and subsequent letter from God's attorney telling them to cease and desist, lol.
All of the Monsters at the d20 index on this page: http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/monsters.htm ,are covered by the OGL1.0A. You'll notice that the Beholder is not listed there.
A lot of the monsters listed in the index are, with the exception of their game stats, in reality public domain - because they are directly extrapolated from folklore and mythology, such as Centaurs, Dryads, Elves, and the Dinosaurs that are listed, among MANY others.
Characters such as the "Blink Dogs", are creatures that were contrived during game play, or created by TSR / Wizards based upon a piece meal patchwork of elements taken from history and literature - with a bit of cultural anthropology and theology thrown in for good measure. Those exist in a "grey area", so they are strictly, and inarguably OGL territory, as for one reason or another the D&D overlords could not slap an absolute "hands off" mandate onto them.
I tend to go with one of two theories about kobolds, orcs and the like: they're green, or (like humans) they come in a multitude of colours.
As for sources: Norse mythology and the like are probably your best bet. Ignore the internet and get a good book or two from your library.
That said, I would not consider WotC to be the last word in anything. I'd suggest using whatever descriptions you prefer as the basis of your drawings. You have a huge selection to choose from: Original D&D, Holmes, Mentzer, Moldvay, 1e, 2e, 3e, that new WotC game that claims to be D&D, pathfinder, arduin, numerous other games, mythology, etc. Whichever sounds best to you is the one you should use. Of course, there's no reason not to create multiple versions either.
As to kobolds, my favorite take on them is what is used at Kobold Quarterly.
The OGL is a good source for a lot of monsters, but if you find something you like better, use it. No need to try to be pure OGL or something else. It is more important that your drawing style itself is consistent than where you get your inspiration from.
Firstly to Old Guy Actually I am drawing them expressly for distribution my friend, but you are definitely right. What I wanted initially was to create "one size fits all" icons for users who are using different game systems with their maps - generic versions of these monsters for "across the board" protocol. You are also very right about WOTC not being the last word on anything, but I did want to use drawings that "somewhat" preserved the flavor of the old TSR stuff (circa 1970s / 1980s), because those materials DID give birth to a multitude of TSR inspired gaming systems and materials. I did my "Lamia" in memory, and tribute to the late David Sutherland's work - David Sutherland is one of my favorite illustrators hands down.
Like I said before - I am doing these to fit D&D / AD&D user's , but ALSO users of other gaming systems having little or nothing to do with either WOTC, or TSR. I'm trying to do "generic" symbols - but I was using the OGL d20 index as a reference because the descriptions seem more or less consistant with the older "origin" materials. I guess that I'm groping for some kind of universal canon here.
Below is my Dave Sutherland inspired Lamia. It is NOT a copy of David's Lamia - as it differs from it considerably, but it was done in memory of one of my favorite monster depictions in the original TSR tomes. R.I.P. David - your work was awsome bro. The Lamia is also covered by OGL.
Ain't this a kick in the keester...
This is the same as all the d20 "companies" did, they took the OGL, which is just the text, and created their own images for it.
A prime example of this is the Pathfinder Bestiary, which is a (very successful) OGL product, and uses a lot of monsters from the d20 reference document, but have made their own artwork for these monsters.
I assumed that they would claim "Product Identity" upon ANY image representing a creature in their general "bestiary". Since the Lamia, and arguably the Kobold, are based on historical Mythological entities - I could let it go and see if sabres rattle or not - but I am the kinda guy that's into dotting my i's, crossing my t's, and looping my p's just ever so carefully, lol.
It's not a "cease and desist" order that I'm concerned about - it's about approximately 12% of my project, hours of work, and the general sense of accomplishment that I have being reduced to fodder for the Windows recycle bin - and some wadded paper in my own waste paper basket, lol.
On the other hand, if you draw a picture of a beholder and call it a beholder, then they will have a problem. Not because of the picture but because you called it a beholder.
Then again, it's never a good idea to take someone's word for it, be it WotC or some guy in a forum. If you have concerns, it would be best to contact a lawyer or research copyright/trademark law yourself and make copies of relevant sections.
The key, at least during 3e D&D days, was sticking to Open SRD monsters - so no beholders, mind flayers/illithids, yaun-ti etc. But the artwork for their kobolds (which are in the SRD) certainly looked like D&D inspired kobolds.
I believe that they might have gotten an SRG license, although I could be wrong. I'll probably just go ahead and fill out the SRG acceptance form from WOTC - just to be on the safe side, and maybe pass on an inquiry to their legal dept. (or maybe not), but the SRD / OGL based monsters that I've drawn (and that I will draw) - I'm keeping in the set. Too much love went into those to flush them, and they are entirely my work - and technically my visual editorial on those entities.
To Old Guy: before getting my attorney to look into that at an expense of roughly $40.00 an hour - I'd much rather research it myself my friend, (although it's a pain because the last time I read up on the copyright code - it was like reading War and Peace - "the extended version",lol), lol - but you have a valid, solid point. Perhaps - as you said - I am creating problems for myself, that assessment seems reasonable considering my irrational fear of copyright Nazis, lol.
Instead of seeing monsters in my closet when I was a kid - I ran into my mom and dad's room in the middle of the night screaming "MOMMY - MOMMY - THERE'S A CORPORATE PARALEGAL UNDER MY BED!!!!" Lol.
Actually the conversation swung a little bit over to a subtopical - but still critically relevant subject, as I really never got an answer to my original question. Still - I want as much advice on the "legalese" of this whole thing as I can get.
Whatever you draw yourself is yours, and as long as you base it upon the materials released under the OGL (Basically the SRD document), you can even use the monster's real name, and you are safe, as long as you distribute a copy of the OGL license along with your images. Just make sure that all D&D monsters in your collection do indeed come from the SRD.
As for your original questions, I thought the answers you got covered the subject. But anyway; As I am a AD&D player, I do prefer monsters from that product line. Since most of the descriptions in the SRD document are still somewhat similar to the older descriptions, I prefer that to be used as the primary source (I would prefer other sources, like the older monster manuals, but they are not Open Content, so you shouldn't use those).