Re: [Ogf-l] PI in summary...

[Bill Olander]

That's a little black and white don't you think? I've always interpreted it to be a context driven thing.   c) the "white out" method is not what WotC intended, the PI usage is a list of terms that you are reminded not to use in the same way that they are used in the same way they're used in the books. "Displacer beast" for example could refer to a variation on the Yeti who's attack teleports you 3 miles in a random direction.   You'll notice though that most of the PI listed in things rather easy for WotC to defend. It doesn't list 'Hades' it lists 'The grey Wastes of Hades'... not Arcadia but the 'peacable kingdoms of arcadia'. etc. ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 8:31 AM Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI in summary... In a message dated 10/24/03 5:05:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: <<Why does this invalidate the white-out method? The whiteout method works great even with terms not found in the OGC. If you find the term in the OGC you white it out. If you don't find it, do nothing. >> It doesn't invalidate it, per se.  But one of the following things must be true: a) if the "white out" method of reading the OGL is true, then WotC's PI statements in the SRD are de facto null and void and everyone can use any of those terms except where they are trademarked or except where they make direct reference (including a contextual usage) to other works copyrighted by WotC where such terms might be found b) the "white out" method is not what WotC intended, and the current administration believes the intent of PI usage is something closer to a "forbidden terms" list Lee