The Gaming Den

Basically, it'd be cool if we had open source substitutes for the following monsters:

• beholder (and their kin)
• carrion crawler
• displacer beast
• the giths (yanki and zerais)
• kuo-toa
• mind flayer
• slaad
• umber hulk
• yuan-ti

The substitute monsters should ideally fill the same niche, and work in fluff and in combat about as well as the IP protected critters: For example, the not-umber hulk should be a large, burrowing underdark monster with some kind of debilitating mental attack besides being a bruiser, while the not-giths should be a race formerly enslaved by the not-illithids but who are now divided in two camps and fight among themselves almost as much as they fight their former captors.

I could take a crack at it.

As I recall, Frank is fond of pointing out the Gith are already open source (they were invented by G. R. R. Martin, who released them to the public after Charles Stross infringed copyright), and that the Ilithids are rip-offs of Star Spawn of Cthulhu, which are also open source. Serpent-men are of course all over the place already, kuo-toa are the Deep Ones, carrion crawlers are frankly pretty generic, as are the slaad. This leaves beholders and displacer beasts.

Though honestly based on your example of how specific the substitute would be, you're looking for very transparent knock-offs, and I can't entirely agree that it would be all that cool to have those.


Beholder in HoMM III

I'm not covering it all, but a lot of these are kind of obvious

• Mind Flayers are easy to replace. Just give them wings and call them Star Spawn.
  Kuo-toa are already Deep Ones with the IP shuffled.
  Beholder's are kind of goofy and only have cultural inertia going for them. Otherwise, anything from the Oculothorax entry could be used to get the general "floating eye with freakin' laser beams" aesthetic.
  Displacer Beasts are another IP-variant of the Coeurl, which are great cats with tentacles coming from their shoulders. Give them something other than displacement, probably something sci-fi or psi-like, and you should be good.
  Carrion Crawlers are giant catepillars with tentacles. Hardly breaking creative ground. Call it something else, add a coat of paint, and you're not going to get sued.
  Yuan-ti: Snake. People.

The people of Gith and Slaad are the hardest to closely mimic, at least at this moment.

schpeelah wrote:Though honestly based on your example of how specific the substitute would be, you're looking for very transparent knock-offs, and I can't entirely agree that it would be all that cool to have those.

The not-umber-hulk can look like an unholy mole/elephant hybrid, with its trunk ending in an organ that projects a cone of unearthly colors which blind or daze creatures (with darkvision users getting a saving throw penalty, since this creature is adapted to life deep underground). They don't need to closely match the appearance, but have similar enough game roles that we could take published modules and run them with the SRD only with minimal adaptation efforts.

Behold the Gazer!

1) Flesh to Stone doesn't have a Will Save.
2) Why do people who behold the Gazer using his attacks get to decide what energy type he uses? What if multiple people behold the attack, and they call different things?
3) What kind of save prevents Daze.

Le whoops, I accidentally called it a beholder instead of a gazer. Fixed!

nockermensch wrote:Basically, it'd be cool if we had open source substitutes for the following monsters:

• beholder (and their kin)
• carrion crawler
• displacer beast
• the giths (yanki and zerais)
• kuo-toa
• mind flayer
• slaad
• umber hulk
• yuan-ti

The substitute monsters should ideally fill the same niche, and work in fluff and in combat about as well as the IP protected critters: For example, the not-umber hulk should be a large, burrowing underdark monster with some kind of debilitating mental attack besides being a bruiser, while the not-giths should be a race formerly enslaved by the not-illithids but who are now divided in two camps and fight among themselves almost as much as they fight their former captors.

I'm using a mostly heavily-modified After Sundown based method to organize monsters in my own SFKS into some semblance of an overall structure that allows the more kitchen sink components tack on as modules to the overall setting.

One band of Parrot-people is just a reskinned group of Salamanders; and they have the fire and vampire powers that all other reptilian Overburn vampires have. While a town of mole-people is no different from any other form of Gargoyle; and are blatantly monstrous, as all other Underchill vampires are.

• beholder (and their kin) [Elder Khlu'khlii - Spawn of Khlu'lhu*]
• carrion crawler [Mi Go Spawn]
• displacer beast [Khlu'Khlii Spawn]
• the giths (yanki and zerais) [Fetch/Lost Boys/Fallen Icarids/Metahumans/Supersoldiers/Alchemized]
• kuo-toa [Deep Ones]
• mind flayer [Klhu'Khlii]
• slaad [Elder Deep Ones]
• umber hulk [Rephaim]
• yuan-ti [Salamander]

*:From Howard Philip's Lovecraft's own admission that Cthulhu should have sounded more like "Kloo-loo"

There is already a creature in real life that is basically a Carrion Crawler.

So just make it a land-based critter, change the toxin, and you're basically done. You can even call it a Bobbit and although that's stupid, it's no more stupid than some of the names creatures have.

Edit: fucked my tags up

• beholder (and their kin)
• carrion crawler
• displacer beast
• the giths (yanki and zerais)
• kuo-toa
• mind flayer
• slaad
• umber hulk
• yuan-ti

As has been mentioned before (even on this post), the WotC claim to "own" any of these monsters is extremely tenuous. All of those are rather outrageously stolen from other media. The Beholder, Carrion Crawler, and Umber Hulk are all D&D statlines given to plastic toys; and the Displacer Beast, Githyanki, Kuo-Toa, Mind Flayer, and Yuan-Ti are all direct rips from science fiction books. Only the Slaad could in any way be called unique IP, but even then the concept of frogs of Chaos is definitely Lovecraftian in origin and the only legally defendable portions are the word "Slaad" and the specific color sequence (the latter of which is coincidentally the most retarded part of the Slaad).

I think that WotC can claim real ownership of the Gith-associated words. So they probably can claim trademark on Githzerai and Gish.

FrankTrollman wrote:but even then the concept of frogs of Chaos is definitely Lovecraftian in origin and the only legally defendable portions are the word "Slaad"

Warham Fantasy of Sigmar has the Slaan as giant frogs, leading the lizardmen. And I believe Warham 40k references the Slaan as being an ancient creator race/Chaos God thing that made shit like the Eldar and the Tyranids and the Orks. So it looks like we can piece it together as "Slaan are Giant Frogs of Chaos". Is there something in the "slaa" part of the name that lends itself to this?

nockermensch wrote:Basically, it'd be cool if we had open source substitutes for the following monsters:

• beholder (and their kin)

Rename to Gazer.

nockermensch wrote:[*] carrion crawler

Rename to Corpse Crawler.

nockermensch wrote:[*] displacer beast

Use the original name: Coeurl. Also will allow you to invoke the Final Fantasy monster which is a good deal better known that DnD displacer beasts.

nockermensch wrote:[*] the giths (yanki and zerais)

As mentioned above, they are in public domain. It's not like the concept is that distinctive anyway.

nockermensch wrote:[*] kuo-toa

Call 'em Deep Ones.

nockermensch wrote:[*] mind flayer

Call 'em whatever Final Fantasy currently calls mind flayers. Or star spawn.

nockermensch wrote:[*] slaad
[*] umber hulk

Is there a particular reason to care about them? Anyway, call 'em chaos frogs and brown brutes or whatever.

nockermensch wrote:[*] yuan-ti

Call 'em serpentmen or serpentkin.

FatR wrote: Is there a particular reason to care about them? Anyway, call 'em chaos frogs and brown brutes or whatever.

As mentioned above, the point is apparently to run published adventures with only open source materials.

nockermensch, why do you need to actually do that? The copyright police isn't going to monitor your games to check if you actually own the Monster Manual.

And tho this hasn't been mentioned yet...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasque

And I'd call a beholder "Floating Eye" over Gazer, but that's me.

I'd just call Beholders "Beholders." Give them a slightly different set of eyebeams and/or tentacle numbers and you're fine. Dropping the "Charm Person" eye seems like a no-brainer to me, and then you're as golden as you need to be. I mean, yes you can call Beholders Chaos Beasts (Master of Magic), Cycloptopus (Wreck It Ralph), Eye Beasts (Reaper), Evil Eyes (Final Fantasy), or Gazers (Monster Girl Encyclopedia). But you can also just call them fucking Beholders. WotC doesn't own the word "Beholder" because it's a regular word. And they don't own the concept of a floating eye with teeth and eye stalks that shoot death lasers. For fuck's sake, you wouldn't even be the first to go there. HoMM has Beholders called "Beholders," and so does Final Fantasy Mystic Quest. The Beholder is really only protectable in the sense of exact text copypasta being a copyright infringement.

Same with Carrion Crawlers. Sure, you can call them "Crawlers" like Final Fantasy, but you don't have to.

Honestly, the only reason that WotC even tries to claim they totes own and invented that list of monsters is that because they are ripped off from modern sources they are afraid that if they admit that those creatures are folkloric that someone might figure out a way to sue their asses. You can pretty much just rip them off.

-Username17

What plastic toy was the beholder from?

erik wrote:And tho this hasn't been mentioned yet...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasque

And I'd call a beholder "Floating Eye" over Gazer, but that's me.

This one's been public domain for centuries. It's based on a myth of a death lizard from the French town of Tarascon, and is named the Tarasque. What you can't do is give it all of the distinct powers that the D&D Tarasque has; as well as making it merely a special dragon; not a world-destroying godzilla-expy. The one exception might be that it's now been classified with other "Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity" by the UNESCO in 2005, so I'm not sure how that dampers things, or not.

Judging__Eagle wrote:

erik wrote:And tho this hasn't been mentioned yet...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarasque

This one's been public domain for centuries. It's based on a myth of a death lizard from the French town of Tarascon, and is named the Tarasque. What you can't do is give it all of the distinct powers that the D&D Tarasque has; as well as making it merely a special dragon; not a world-destroying godzilla-expy. The one exception might be that it's now been classified with other "Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity" by the UNESCO in 2005, so I'm not sure how that dampers things, or not.

This is a very weird post. Are you repeating the contents of the link I posted because you think nobody could read the wikipedia article?

erik wrote:This is a very weird post. Are you repeating the contents of the link I posted because you think nobody could read the wikipedia article?

It's funny, because the other day, I was talking about JE's faults, and I said "and he always shows up and posts a big ass rant that states everything that everyone else agreed on pages ago, or was implicit in the conversation, but he casts it in a tone like he's enlightening everyone."

Good job JE, thanks for proving me right.

Demons Souls has mind flyers in them, except they pierce your heart instead of your brain. Bloodborne has mind Flayers that suck insight out of your head.

Dark Souls has the DnD grick renamed as Pisaca
http://darksouls.wikidot.com/pisaca

Dragons Crown and Dragons Dogma have beholders in them, the dogma one has its eye in its mouth and makes eye stalks pop out of the ground.

The main change is the name really.

There's plenty of cases of DnD 'originals' being used with minor to no cosmetic changes. So use them to your hearts content

erik wrote: This is a very weird post. Are you repeating the contents of the link I posted because you think nobody could read the wikipedia article?

Sorry; I thought you were linking to the wiki entry for the D&D creature in your post (and thus didn't bother with actually using your link), and the relative vagueness of your post didn't make it clear that you were referring to the the creature from Tarascon itself. Neither did I use to the link you posted (b/c I didn't think it was what I wanted to refer to); and instead pulled the links I used from my own previously archived bookmarks folders on Worldbuilding my own Science Fantasy Heartbreaker to write my post.

Kaelik, yes I will generally miss details about things that don't interest me, because I'm mostly down the rabbit holes of details on topics I trying to digest, immersed in those details instead. Being "always right out of the blue" is a likely a fault of having suffering from both Adult ADD and Obsessive Compulsive traits (or so said my Neurologist when first medicating me for one, then attempting to medicate me for the other).

Judging__Eagle wrote:Kaelik, yes I will generally miss details about things that don't interest me, because I'm mostly down the rabbit holes of details on topics I trying to digest, immersed in those details instead.

I'm going to have to give you only half marks for this one JE. While I do agree you successfully wrote meaningless gibberish, a true JE post would be a wall of meaningless gibberish.

Now please get the third JEism right, so that I can score you as solid 2.5/3 JEs.

No worries. I'm not butthurt over it, I just think you'll spare yourself some grief and time by giving a cursory inspection at what someone posts before taking them to task for it. I'm more prone to be gunshy, and given to granting excessive benefit of the doubt since I'm probably dyslexic+ADHD to some extent. I've gotten better with the dyslexia with age, and just reread the shit out of things (and still fuck up on occasion).

For the Tarrasque, all you really have to do is make sure you don't misspell it with that second "r" and you're fine. Basically just a continuation on the theme that people don't have to try hard at all to reskin D&D critters (if at all) and that this thread is overkill. It wasn't a total waste tho, as I did learn about Coeurls though thanks to this thread, and they seem far more interesting than displacer beasts.