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

[Bill Olander]

Show of hands. Anyone on this list NOT know what 'beholder' is a reference to? How about 'Displacer beast'? 'Illithid'?   ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 11:03 AM Subject: Re: [Ogf-l] PI in summary... In a message dated 10/24/03 10:00:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: <<The SRD omits the beholder as a monster. The player's handbook does not. Having that declaration right in the legal section means that there is no excuse of saying 'oh I didn't realize'. Having that in there means that the lawyers can say 'look you jackass, it specifically states it right there!" >> But it, in fact, doesn't _specifically_ state anything.  Re: beholder, it lists the word.  Not that it's a monster.  Not that it's in any particular work.  The party I was responding to suggested that the PI declaration was referring to the use of "beholder" in other works. Such a vague reference would have to be in violation of the clear designation requirement, in my opinion, unless either the "forbidden items" or "white out" readings of the OGL were applicable, in which case both can can be inferred to work with such a reference, because both would involve no requirement to know about any work anywhere else outside of the SRD. That's why I said that if there was a third way to view WotC's PI declaration (I listed only two), that third way automatically seems to implicate WotC in failing to clearly indicate their PI. IANAL YMMV Lee