> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > << As has already being pointed out, even the cover of "Slayer's Guide to > Hobgoblins" is in (most likely unwitting) contravention of copyright, by > clearly building on artwork from the MM, portraying a creature > from the SRD. > > > > > <LOL> Says who?
I suggested it, based on a comparison of the artwork in the MM to the artwork in the Slayer's guide, and gave detailed examples of why I thought so. There are a thousand ways to draw such a creature, and they chose one that is remarkably similar to the one in the 3e MM. If anyone cared to push it, I suspect they'd be ordered to prove that it wasn't derivative. I'm not saying they can't. I find it interesting that Hobgoblins are portrayed as they are anyway...the English myth for a Hobgoblin is nothing like what appears in D&D. Hobgoblins in myth are often characterized as benign and mischievous, and only became vicious if they were righting some wrong. It has been proposed that the character "Puck" in Shakespeare's Midsummernight's Dream was a traditional English Hobgoblin. It is extremely common in mythology for creatures to change in form and temperament over the centuries. The Cockatrice and the Basilisk are actually the same myth, but told from medieval and Roman times respectively. Same goes for the Germanic myth of Kobolds, which seem to me to be a lot more like the "Korred" from 2e than the lizard-like dog-faced things we have in the MM. I haven't investigated all that many sources yet, so if anybody knows where the TSR interpretation came from I'm all ears (woodelf?). So basically somebody converted the Hobgoblin and Kobold to their current form, and it is not the traditional form. I can't say who did, but it has some pretty far-reaching implications if it was TSR. -Brad _______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
