The rust monster, owlbear, and bullette were all visually based on cheap plastic toys Gary Gygax bought. So WotC really can’t claim “Product Identity” for their appearance.
The hook horror is an interesting case. It originated in the “Fiend Factory” column of the UK gaming magazine White Dwarf. It then appeared in The Fiend Folio for AD&D, which was sort of an oddball sideline to the “main” Monster Manual. Most of the monsters, like the hook horror, were drawn from that “Fiend Factory” column; some of them were created by freelancers, but a lot of them were fan submissions. And they were originally submitted not to TSR directly, but to a third party magazine. The intellectual property rights are…murky. Asserting “Product Identity” for critters like the hook horror could get messy.
And then there’s the simple fact that the hook horror has never been a particularly popular monster. It had a bit of a heyday back in the mid-80s when it, for whatever reason, was one of the monsters included in the D&D action figure line, but beyond that, it’s mostly known in D&D lore for being kind of odd.
The umber hulk, by contrast, while it’s kind of fallen into obscurity, in the early days of D&D was definitely an iconic monster. The AD&D Coloring Album prominently featured an encounter with one, for example, and it was one of the main foes in the dungeon mini-game in the middle of the book.
And then you have critters like the blink dog, which is…a dog. I mean, it’s a magical dog that blinks in and out of the ethereal plane, but…not really in the same league, as far as distinctive monsters, as a panther like critter with 6 legs and spiked tentacles.
The “protected identity” monsters also have a history of being used a lot on official D&D book covers, especially the monster books. For instance, my 2nd edition monstrous compendium features a beholder, a displacer beast, and an umber hulk (and no other monsters, not even the titular dragon). And the 5th edition monster manual also has a beholder (and no other monsters), as do at least two other 5th edition books. That puts them on fairly strong footing (er, eyestalking?) as far as trademark law goes: They’re clearly using the likeness of these creatures as an identifier of origin of these products.
For what it’s worth, my musing about the various protected critters was just that… musing. I was just amused that Displacer Beasts have an explicit rivalry/hatred of Blink Dogs and was making a joke versus actually expecting them to slap a protection on “Golden retriever that pops in and out”
Umber Hulks are dumb. But then, I always found Beholders to be one of the dumber D&D creatures as well no matter how hard TSR/WotC works to convince me that the floating beach-ball monster is actually super cool. If anything, it only makes it worse since I could half accept Beholders as “dungeon basement trap-monster weirdness” but trying to make them into a whole thing just casts more light on how dumb they are. This isn’t an invitation to “prove me wrong” 'cause you ain’t never gonna prove me wrong if TSR/WotC hasn’t done so yet. They just never landed with me.
I apologize if I came across as “trying to prove you wrong.” For what’s it worth, I just saw an opportunity to share some random geeky knowledge with what seemed like a potentially interested audience.
I actually disagree with you, to an extent, about umber hulks and beholders, but that’s a matter of taste. You’re not “wrong” to think they’re goofy, we just have different tastes. I do agree to an extent, though, in that I do think a lot of the expanded lore WotC, and TSR before it, often tried to attach to its weirder monsters, like the “Great Mother” stuff @Babale references, is often just kind of dumb, and usually doesn’t actually add much if anything to play at the table. But, of course, that’s a matter of taste, as well.
Sure, you’re right, but even if this beholder is still Evil, it isn’t Evil for the same reason Beholders usually are (xenophobia ratcheted up so high that even other beholders are seen as grotesque abominations) - if it felt that way, it wouldn’t view Serini as a “mother”. So even if it is still evil in that it lacks respect for the sanctity of sentient life or w/e, it doesn’t follow the standard Beholder cultural pathway to get there.
I used to agree with you, until I ran one of my favorite games of all times back in college. I had a homebrew plot where various evil gods were cooperating to destroy the Material Plane by breaking its link to the Inner Planes, leading it to merge into the Outer Planes as a series of portals start opening to the hells, heavens, abyss, limbo, etc.
One of the evil gods who was in on the plan was the Great Mother, and the more material I read about it the more it actually worked.
Are beholders silly? Yeah, but no more silly than giant fire-breathing lizards who fly on tiny wings that couldn’t possibly provide enough lift to get them off the ground, and who live in caves with tons and tons of treasure. Hell, take the copper dragon, who likes to keep his enormous wealth entirely in copper coins - now WOTC is just trolling!
It’s all good. I actually do find it interesting. Umber hulks are sort of goofy and I’m actually not sure I’ve ever seen a DM add one himself (versus it being in a pre-written module). Beholders just feel like some kids tried to come up with Ultimate Monster where it has, like, all these eyes that shoot all these spells and everything since has been lamely trying to justify it. Which, aside from the kids being in their 30s, is probably pretty close to the mark.
Plus you can take out a 5e Beholder with a Fog Cloud spell so… lame!
I’d say both are equally implausible but not equally silly. Dragons might not “work” but there’s still tons of kick-ass dragons in art & media. Beholders are always stuck looking like Beholders.
I’m not up on my beholder lore, but after reading your post about the Great Mother, my first thought was that Serini has somehow convinced this beholder that she’s the Great Mother.
Some time back, Burlew made some kind of comment about how a charcter that has only appeared in a single strip will become a significant character going forward. I don’t remember his exact words and I’m too lazy to look them up, but there’s a long thread about this on the GitP forum.
It’s certainly the same visual design, down to the ocher color.
Of course, it’s entirely possible that in OOTSWorld, beholders all look more or less alike, but as discussed upthread, it’s become an integral part of their lore that every beholder has a unique appearance (which was probably mainly a retcon explaining the variation in their artistic presentation over the decades, but still, it’s now The Lore).
