I've noticed lots of links to dndtools.eu lately. That site seems to have verbatim text from a lot of non-OGL D&D stuff.

Obviously, that's really useful as a reference! But the site itself is presumably violating copyright, and if it ever gets taken down, all those links become useless.

Is this something that needs to be addressed?

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ +1 I noticed this too, didn't think to post a question \$\endgroup\$
    – LitheOhm
    Commented Feb 4, 2013 at 20:08
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ Related: What constitutes copyright infringement? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 5, 2013 at 17:06
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ It is now. WotC issued a C&D order, and dndtools are shut down. Though their database is intact, can be found and can be used, the now-broken links are no longer a handy way to one-click look the references up. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 20, 2014 at 10:03
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ And someone has taken up the creator on their "i got a c&d so i'm guess i'll just leave the database and site code right here but i'm not saying you should use it lol" and has put it back up at a different URL. So we'll be seeing these again, with the same problems as before. Only, the C&D might be faster this time. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Mar 21, 2015 at 5:12
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Since dndtools.whatever mirror links are suddenly popping up again on the site and it appears some editors are unaware that they were once a problem, I'm making this featured for a while. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 4, 2015 at 18:05

4 Answers 4


I don't offer a position on the ethics or legality of linking to "D&D Tools" – that's amply covered already, and (despite my frequent writing about the legal issues of copyright) my personal feelings about what should be the ethics and legality are complicated and aren't relevant.

There is a practical reason we shouldn't link to that site though. It goes like this:

  1. The site violates the Berne Convention and various narrower international agreements.
  2. Hasbro has a large and active legal department in a country that's party to these agreements.
  3. From (1) and (2), it is therefore inevitable that Hasbro will cause the site or its contents to disappear at some point in the not-too-distant future. They've done it before.
    (Note: this prediction came true November 2014.)
  4. Our basic goal is to provide answers that will remain relevant over time and won't “rot”.
  5. If we keep these links, from (3) we know that inevitably they will become dead links in our answers. Even if mirrors are put up, they too will eventually be taken down, creating a never-ending link maintenance task for us.
  6. (4) and (5) are in conflict, therefore we have to reject one or the other.
  7. We're not going to abandon our site's goals, so we therefore must reject linking to sites that we know are as good as dead already.

So, legally, we could leave these links alone, but we are compromising the quality of our site while doing so. This is a case where legality is not the only relevant concern. I think we should, despite the lack of legal liability, proactively replace these links simply as a matter of maintaining the quality of the answers the site generates.

(This is analogous to “you have the protected right to say what you want, but not the right to prevent others from saying you're a terrible person for saying it” principle of freedom of speech: What's legal isn't necessarily smart or useful. Focusing on legality can make people miss the obvious a-legal downsides of a choice.)

  • 14
    \$\begingroup\$ +1 I like your use of logic as opposed to an appeal to decency or legality. \$\endgroup\$
    – LitheOhm
    Commented Feb 7, 2013 at 2:47
  • 8
    \$\begingroup\$ I think this is the best reason to avoid them. \$\endgroup\$
    – Shog9
    Commented Feb 7, 2013 at 2:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, when I posted the Q I wasn't really concerned with the legality/morality of it directly (seems like resolving that is outside the scope of SE), just wondering what the practical policy should be. Though Hasbro has yet to crack down on dndwiki, which is also a hotbed of "appropriated" game text and OGL violation. :) \$\endgroup\$
    – starwed
    Commented Feb 8, 2013 at 5:07
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't mind us avoiding the links, but per the general SE policy on copyright I'm hesitant to say they are "not allowed" and should be flagged for cause or the like. So encourage people not to use them, and you can propose edits to remove, etc., but it's not a "rule that they can't." \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Commented Oct 17, 2014 at 12:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk Along those lines, I revised it to be less “must” sounding and more encouragement “because it's better anyway.” \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 4, 2015 at 19:18

D&D Tools.eu has been taken down.

They received a cease & desist letter from Wizards of the Coast. That pretty well settles the debate: we shouldn't link to it, because there's nothing there now. SevenSidedDie's predictions came true.

There's some parting words from the owner on the homepage, and an explanation of the situation: http://dndtools.eu/

If that ever goes down too, the same parting words are preserved on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.

Speaking of the Wayback Machine: I suggest we do not link to cached/archived versions of D&D Tools.

Legal or moral issues of whether we should link to cached versions entirely aside: those preserved copies of the site's copyright-violating content are going to go away eventually too, and they're broken links simply waiting to be such.

Internet Archive services requests to remove copyrighted works. See their Wayback Machine FAQ, specifically: What is the Wayback Machine's Copyright Policy?

Google Cache has done similar in the past.

Same goes for mirrors: don't link to 'em.

So, there's mirrors now.

Wizards of the Coast will catch up with those too, however many pop up, one by one. While they're busy playing whack-a-mole like world governments with the Pirate Bay, we're going to get the same links breaking along the way, which is a pain.

Just say what you have, cite the book, and rely that whoever's reading might have the book (and really, these are the people you want answering your question anyway because they understand the greater context of your thing). Whoever else can go look up an illegal third party site like dndtools, that's their choice.

  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Note that the Wayback Machine is an archive rather than a cache, so the pages don't expire. But yes, a takedown request from WotC would remove them, so the fundamental point remains. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 25, 2014 at 21:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie thanks for catching my usage of those terms :) \$\endgroup\$ Commented Nov 26, 2014 at 5:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ I spoke with someone who claimed to be an editor over there. They told me that it changed hands and is now up and running again, because the current owner hasn't received a cease and desist letter or something like that? Good point about the Wayback Machine. \$\endgroup\$
    – LitheOhm
    Commented Nov 13, 2015 at 16:39

I contend yes, addressing it would be worthwhile. Even though posting a link doesn't violate copyrights, the posting of a link does endorse a site. This endorsement flows through to copyright violation (even if not by the letter of the law, I'm no lawyer).

Begin rant.

Legally (again, I'm no lawyer but I do know a tiny bit about copyright) I believe it's not punishable to show people where to find copyrighted information. Ethically is another matter entirely. While the material is not hosted by us or by RPG.SE, it's still essentially the same as directing someone to the former MegaUpload for copies of the books they are requesting rules from, instead of to Amazon or Wikipedia.

While the presence of some dead links could be remedied by an hour or two of volunteer work editing (yay for search features) at any time, it's a matter of social responsibility. I paid cash to have my books. I supported the company who published my books. I paid for the right to reference them whenever I'd like. Sites like DnDTools.Eu sidestep this and ultimately detract from the RPG community as a whole. If you like what's in a book, support the friggin' author.


I'm not sure precisely how this should be addressed, but it ought to be. The mods probably have a way for handling links to download illegal content? Things of this nature should fall in line with that. Even if we're not doing the copyright infringing ourselves, gaining unfair/free benefit from another entity doing so isn't right.

  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ +1 I couldn't agree more. By allowing links in content on this site you are implicitly validating other sites that might be violating copyright, and even if they are not then it is still a ethically very grey \$\endgroup\$
    – Wibbs
    Commented Feb 5, 2013 at 0:56
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ So, having a nice index to look things up instead of digging in a ton of books you've already paid for is ethically unacceptable? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 5, 2013 at 6:16
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @JeorMattan An index is highly unlikely to violate copyright. Quoting a creative work verbatim is likely a violation of copyright unless an exception such as fair use applies. In this case, it looks to my (uneducated about OGL vs non-OGL) eye like the site being linked to is quoting verbatim, not just providing an index into rule books. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 5, 2013 at 6:29
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @JeorMattan And if you are suggesting that RPG.SE is acting like an index, that is consistent with the observation of a few other posters here, that RPG.SE is probably not violating copyright. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 5, 2013 at 6:31
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @LitheOhm I'm pretty sure that your post changed since I've commented it. My point is that I've already paid the money for the books, so I don't feel like I don't have the right to take a look at any quote (even full one) from the content I've already paid for. And I suppose people here own the books they ask questions about, so the point is applicable to them. Where is this (uneducated on copyright matters) opinion incorrect? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 5, 2013 at 11:40
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ @JeorMattan the question here isn't about the ethics of looking at unauthorized intellectual property, the question is should RPG.SE be suggesting that people do so. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 5, 2013 at 17:02
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @SimonWithers doesn't RPG.SE presume that people actually own the books containing the material they are asking about? For example, if user A asks about rule X, he supposedly has access to the book B, containing said rule, and therefore is authorized to access the information contained there. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 5, 2013 at 17:56
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @JeorMattan Asking questions about rules in a book is only one way that site might get linked to. Asking a question not about a book can be answered with a link on that site to applicable rules in a book the asker may not own. Further, other users reading the answer and clicking the link (who are also a relevant party beyond the asker and answerer) are not presumed to own the books in either case. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 6, 2013 at 18:35

NO, unless the presence of the link is a copyright violation by itself.

Having a reference on hand is way better than having to look everything up in a book, so it's either a plain quote from the rulebook (supposedly violating copyright) or a link to a plain quote (which is also violating copyright, but rpg.stackexchange.com is not to be blamed).

In the light of ability to look anything up in the physical book, the potential inaccessibility of the site hosting the plain quote is also a non-issue.

  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ A quote is fair use, and therefore not a copyvio. \$\endgroup\$
    – starwed
    Commented Feb 4, 2013 at 16:59
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Why is dndtool violating copyright, then? Looks like they are just quoting the books. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 4, 2013 at 17:28
  • 11
    \$\begingroup\$ I'd suggest reading about fair use. There are several factors that determine whether it applies; most damningly for dndtools, they reproduce large (complete) portions of the rules, and do so in a way that affects the market for the original material. \$\endgroup\$
    – starwed
    Commented Feb 4, 2013 at 17:55
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ And to compare the quoting of rules text here to there, here rules text is often quoted with annotation in the form "I believe [X] because [Rules quote Y] and [Rules quote Z] when combined produce outcomes [A], [B], and [C]" as opposed to [Complete Rule 1], [Complete Rule 2] ... \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 5, 2013 at 6:35
  • 9
    \$\begingroup\$ @starwed To be precise, a quote for the purpose of commentary or critique is fair use. A quote for the purpose of providing access to the quoted text is not fair use. It's not the size, but the purpose of the quote, that matters. Large quotes are merely more obvious in their non-fair use-ness, but large quotes are not inherently non-fair use. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 6, 2013 at 18:27
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ @SevenSidedDie The portion of the material reproduced affects fair use. While you can quote a small passage in a critique, you certainly can't reproduce the entire work. (It's the third prong of the standard fair use test.) \$\endgroup\$
    – starwed
    Commented Feb 7, 2013 at 6:09
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @starwed Yes, that's true. I mean only that the inverse isn't true: a small quote isn't automatically fair use due to size. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Feb 7, 2013 at 6:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .