Death Knights in Golarion


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

51 to 84 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Montalve wrote:


it is just about medieval vision... i think we should get something more universal... yes a warrior coming back from the death, with power to inspire terror in his enemies, and taint the land he stands

but more importantly, why this creature would serve evil itself?

How about a Plague Knight, an undead raised by the fould taint of a daemon to spread death across the lands...

This pulls in more of the daemons into the story, works well with the Four Horsemen and fits the theme of daemons of spreaders of death.

So next thing is, is there already a Plague Knight?

Liberty's Edge

Krome wrote:

How about a Plague Knight, an undead raised by the fould taint of a daemon to spread death across the lands...

This pulls in more of the daemons into the story, works well with the Four Horsemen and fits the theme of daemons of spreaders of death.

So next thing is, is there already a Plague Knight?

not that i remember

mmm but again why knight? i know we are all withthe idea of a Death Knight, but why a Knight?

while in Mendev and the world wound it would be fitting to have a fallen warrior come to life and who is able to blight the land with its mere steps would beinteresting and a way to spread the taint of the demond wound i must come again to my original idea

a servant of Pharasma...

i found an interesting focus on the people of Rhahadoum,but i need to solid the idea first...

i was thinking ina phrase used in the book of Dracula "the dead travel fast" (i think that ishow it would be translated) i wasthinking in giving them a similar ability as the one used by the Travel domain, in which they coudl avance meters oreven kilometers with but a single step to go where the "immortals" are.

obviously an ability to find and track them would be useful, they could serve the rol of "Grim Reapers", steeping suddenly, appearing where no one should have gone, killing the unkillable...


Maybe we should go away from knight.May be something like

Gravetouched Legionnaire
Death spurned warrior
Unhallowed soldier
Forsaken warriors
Graveborn
Dread Blades
Unhallowed revers

Liberty's Edge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Maybe we should go away from knight.May be something like

Gravetouched Legionnaire
Death spurned warrior
Unhallowed soldier
Forsaken warriors
Graveborn
Dread Blades
Unhallowed revers

i do love many of this ideas

specially how it sounds "Graveborn" (f~+*.. still the "why so serious?" phrasein my head)

but Gravtouched Legionnaire makes me freak out...
"we are legion" gah!!!!!! i would hate an army of those... just fullfilling different functions or orders... untill called back for war...

Grand Lodge

James Jacobs wrote:
Herald wrote:

And if that is concidered crossing the line for you, that's fine and I respect that.

I do have a problem though with others who just say that they are in violation just because "they know that WOTC just hasn't caught up to them." This is ENworld folks. WOTC has been all over that site since 3e came out. It's up to WOTC to do something about it.

The should be given the benefit of the doubt...

It's also worth considering that Pathfinder's got a lot more eyes at WotC watching it, i suspect, than the Creature Catalog section of EN World. And there's a big difference between printing something online and printing something in a book. What WotC might not care about in an online post buried somewhere on ENworld they might very much notice something in Pathfinder. So I'd rather not even toy with things like that.

This isn't about a post on a message board this was, this is a website dedicated to converting old monsters to 3e and 3.5e. It is the site that Clark used to help create the "Tomb of Horrors" which was a product in print.

Once again, if you don't want to use it, thats fine and I respect that and certainly wouldn't twist anyones arm to do so, but the allusion is that this work is tainted and there is no proof that it is.


Harrow knight. Maybe with some kind of tie in to the dead god. Maybe an attack that causes wildly cascading and contradictory precognitive flashes resulting in confusion. Varisian fortune tellers would be scared to death of them.

Contributor

Herald wrote:


This isn't about a post on a message board this was, this is a website dedicated to converting old monsters to 3e and 3.5e. It is the site that Clark used to help create the "Tomb of Horrors" which was a product in print.

Once again, if you don't want to use it, thats fine and I respect that and certainly wouldn't twist anyones arm to do so, but the allusion is that this work is tainted and there is no proof that it is.

I'm sorry, but there are certain facts that you seem to keep rolling right on over. First, the death knight is intellectual property that has been owned by WotC since the publication of the 1st edition Fiend Folio. Second, the only way that you can use WotC owned IP is if they've either (a) released it to the SRD, or (b) given you special permission. Third, the fact that it appears on a fan site and WotC hasn't bothered sicking their lawyers on the site to have it removed does not mean that points one and two above are not true. Fourth, the material that appears in the Tome of Horrors was made available and released as open content via a special agreement between Necromancer Games and WotC. No such agreement was made for the death knight, which is why it doesn't appear in the Tome of Horrors. Fifth, the death knight on that page is attached to the OGL, which is why it is in violation. Sixth, releasing a death knight, even if it is pulled from the creature collection at ENWorld, would constitute a challenge to WotC's copyright, and they would then be forced into a position where they would either have to take action or lose the copyright. It is never good advice to suggest to a company that they challenge someone else's copyright.

If you do the research and learn a little bit about how the OGL works and how copyright law works, you would come to the realization that what you're saying is not only incorrect, but very poor advice for someone who is doing this professionally. Fortunately Paizo understands the way things work, but there are others, possibly those following this conversation, who might either own a small publishing company or be thinking of starting one up who might not have access to a copyright lawyer and think that your advice is OK. It isn't. I'd imagine that right now WotC would love to find a legal problem with Pathfinder so they can damage 4E's biggest competition - suggesting that they should give them exactly what they want isn't what I would call a good idea.


Blayde MacRonan wrote:
How about calling them Bleak Knights?

Damn. I read that as "Black Knights" and started thinking of the wording for abilities that allows you to mock enemies when you're losing and keep fighting even when you're several limbs short.


Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:
Harrow knight. Maybe with some kind of tie in to the dead god. Maybe an attack that causes wildly cascading and contradictory precognitive flashes resulting in confusion. Varisian fortune tellers would be scared to death of them.

Dude - that rocks!

Stolen for my games!

Peace,

tfad

Liberty's Edge

I like the idea of grave knights. Sounds more powerful and less cheesy than death knight anyway.


"Grave Knight" has a really nice ring to it. I love it. Kudos to JJ for proposing it, and a nod to Shakur (who wisely recommended separating it into two words).


tallforadwarf wrote:
Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:
Harrow knight. Maybe with some kind of tie in to the dead god. Maybe an attack that causes wildly cascading and contradictory precognitive flashes resulting in confusion. Varisian fortune tellers would be scared to death of them.

Dude - that rocks!

Stolen for my games!

Peace,

tfad

[voice of Elvis on] Thank you, thank you very much. I'll be here all weak. [voice of Elvis o...naw I'll just keep it on]


heh couldn't help myself...

Graveborn Legionnaire

Spoiler:

The origins of the Graveborn Legionnaire are shrouded in the secrets of the past. His name, the nation he fought for and even the wars he raged are like sands in the wind, details changed with each telling .The rest of the story changes little and there in lays the truth of the tale.

War leader Jeg’rel was a fearless man, who put his nation’s needs above all. He would kill, maim and lay villages to ruin all on the needs of his nation.. To him his nation was above any one man. Then came a time of the Great War, towns and cities whole regions laid to red ruin. Time and again he led his men to battle throwing away lives for his nations need.
He meet his end at the height of the war and his body lay in a mass grave. His soul stood in line for judgment, and there is where the fiends found him. Oh the devils painted a bleak and dark future for his nation. A future of servitude and slavery of how he failed his nation at its hour of need. They should him a way of half truths and deceptions. And to the damnation of his soul and countless others, he believed them.
Soon after his dead hand climbed from his grave mound and eat of the grave dirt sealing his fate. Deep in the fires of hell the devils danced with glee as their legionnaire summoned his horde and begin his unholy crusade

Appearance: Graveborn Legionnaire’s Appear as Mummified versions of who they were in life. There armor dark, pitted and caked in grave dirt that never washes away or falls from there bodies .They smell of fresh dirt and seem to chill the very air around them

Graveborn Legionnaire often go dormant for decades of even centuries only to be called back for a battle or war. Bringing a Graveborn Legionnaire back to awareness can be done in several ways. Speaking its true name at its grave site or in it’s place of rest. A battle within 2 miles per HD of its resting place may also wake a resting Graveborn Legionnaire. And lastly a grave danger to the thing it gave it’s soul to protect will almost always waken a Graveborn Legionnaire.

Graveborn Legionnaire is a template that can be added to any evil
Humanoid creature of 8th level or higher (referred to hereafter as the character). The character’s type changes to undead. It uses all the character’s statistics and special abilities except as noted here.

HitDice: All the character’s Hit Dice (current and future) become d12s.
Speed: Same as the character.
AC: The Graveborn Legionnaire has +5 natural armor, or the character’s natural armor, whichever is better. They wear what ever armor they did in life
Attacks: Graveborn Legionnaire usually fights with martial weapons. This weapon is a corrupted version of one they used in life [see below], but if disarmed they will use their touch of the grave attack.
Damage: The Graveborn Legionnaire has several attacks at his disposal
* touch of the grave : This touch attack uses chilling cold to deal damage equal to 1d8 + the Graveborn Legionnaire ‘s Charisma bonus to living creatures. Each successful touch attack also deals 1 point of strength damage. A Will save (DC 10 + 1/2 Graveborn Legionnaire’s HD + Graveborn Legionnaire‘s Charisma modifier) reduces the damage by half and negates the Strength damage. Characters with natural attacks can use their
natural weaponry or use the touch attack, as they prefer.
*Corruptions blade: The Graveborn Legionnaire’s most fearsome attack is that which they carried in life. Soon after there death the Graveborn Legionnaire’s weapon takes on a new sinister quality’s The weapon counts as unholy and wounding further more any one struck with such a vile weapon may be infected with an unholy corrupting disease. Target must make a fortitude save [of DC 10 + 1/2 Graveborn Legionnaire’s HD + Graveborn Legionnaire‘s Charisma modifier] or lose 1d6 Con per day until a remove despise spell is cast. Any one who dies from such a wound is doomed to rise as a zombie in 1d6 days under the Graveborn Legionnaire’s control.

Special Attacks:
Fear Aura (Su): Graveborn Legionnaire’s are shrouded in a dreadful aura of death and evil. Creatures of less than 8HD within 30 feet of a Graveborn Legionnaire’s must succeed at aWill save (DC 10 +
1/2 Graveborn Legionnaire’s HD + Graveborn Legionnaire’s Charisma modifier)
or be affected as though by a fear spell cast by a sorcerer of the Graveborn Legionnaire’s level.

Command Undead[su] : A Graveborn Legionnaire can command a number of undead equal to three times its levels in Hit Dice of followers. This functions just as the spell Command undead except in the number of HD controlled

Channel Negative energy[su]: A Graveborn Legionnaire may channel energy as a cleric of ½ it’s total Hit Dice.

Spells: A Graveborn Legionnaire can cast any spells it could while alive, unless alignment restrictions prohibit the casting of a particular spell.

Special Qualities: A Graveborn Legionnaire all the character’s special qualities and gains those described below.

Damage Reduction (Su): A Graveborn Legionnaire undead body is tough, fueled by fiendish power giving the creature damage reduction 15/magic

Immunities (Ex): Graveborn Legionnaires are immune to cold, electricity, and polymorph in addition to those immunities possessed by undead (see below).

Spell Resistance (Su): A Graveborn Legionnaire gains spell resistance 20 +1 per character’s level beyond 10th.

Summon Mount (Su): A Graveborn Legionnaire has the ability to summon a mount, typically a nightmare, though it may be of any other species normally used as a mount. [add fiendish template]The mount may have no more Hit Dice than half the Graveborn Legionnaire s levels. If the mount is lost or killed, the Graveborn Legionnaire may summon another one after a year and a day.

Unholy Arua (Ex): A Graveborn Legionnaire is not affected by positive energy and there for can not be turned. Also because of its close ties to some fiendish master it gains a +4 unholy bonuses on all saves. Further more any place that a Graveborn Legionnaire stays at for more then a year and a day becomes unhallowed as the spell

Dust to dust: Any time a Graveborn Legionnaire is brought to zero Hit Points it falls to dust and falls to the ground. However the Graveborn Legionnaire is not destroyed and the dust moves though the earth at a rate of 60 feet per round until it comes to either is last resting place or a grave yard.. Once at a resting place the Graveborn Legionnaire regains 1 hp per day until it regains awareness at full Hit points
Futer more a Graveborn Legionnaire may go to dust anytime it wills and often rests for years or decades like this leaving it’s undead horde to guard it’s grave site.
The only way know to kill a Graveborn Legionnaire for good is to dig it up as its regenerating. Then cast bless on its bones and hallow upon it’s grave only then can the Graveborn Legionnaire’s soul rest.[ A Graveborn Legionnaire will awaked in 1d6 rounds if anyone attacks it’s followers of digs at it’s grave

Undead Traits: A Graveborn Legionnaire is immune to mindaffecting effects, poison,
sleep, paralysis, stunning, disease, death effects, necromantic effects, and any
effect that requires a Fortitude save unless it also works on objects. It is not subject to critical hits, subdual damage, ability damage, ability drain, energy drain, or death from massive damage. A Graveborn Legionnaire cannot be raised, and resurrection
works only if it is willing. The creature has darkvision (60-foot range).
Saves: As character +4[for unholy arua]
Abilities: A Graveborn Legionnaire gains +4 to Strength, Wisdom and Charisma. Being undead, it has no Constitution score.
Skills: Same as character.
Feats: Same as character
Climate/ Terrain: Any land and underground.
Organization: Solitary or troupe (see command undead, above).
Challenge Rating Not sure here
Treasure: standard.
Alignment: Same as character (always evil).Normally Lawful Evil
Advancement: Graveborn Legionnaire continue to advance in level as per their original class

Am not good with templates so feed back would be much welcome..As would help on the CR


Very nice. I'd add unholy toughness so it can get its Cha mod as extra hp. Like the dust to dust thing. Cool.


umm what book is unholy toughness in? That sounds like a good ideal.
also In the game I will be using it in most undead cant cross salt, and salt also injures them. Since thats a world thing though I left it out.

glad ya liked it been in my head since I came up with the name. My players are gonna just love it.

Liberty's Edge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

umm what book is unholy toughness in? That sounds like a good ideal.

also In the game I will be using it in most undead cant cross salt, and salt also injures them. Since thats a world thing though I left it out.

glad ya liked it been in my head since I came up with the name. My players are gonna just love it.

Unholy toughness is only on Closed WotC monsters. So come up with a new term. Graveborn resilience, maybe?

Liberty's Edge

Timespike wrote:
Unholy toughness is only on Closed WotC monsters. So come up with a new term. Graveborn resilience, maybe?

There's a monster with this ability in one of the later Crimson Throne modules. I believe they called it Unholy Fortitude.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Timespike wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

umm what book is unholy toughness in? That sounds like a good ideal.

also In the game I will be using it in most undead cant cross salt, and salt also injures them. Since thats a world thing though I left it out.

glad ya liked it been in my head since I came up with the name. My players are gonna just love it.

Unholy toughness is only on Closed WotC monsters. So come up with a new term. Graveborn resilience, maybe?

We use a similar effect in Pathfinder now and then; we call it unholy fortitude. IIRC; it lets the undead add its Charisma bonus to hit points and fortitude saves?

ANYway... once the PFRPG rolls around, undead recieving hit points from Charisma is in the game at the baseline, so that's good at least.


Its standard in PF RPG, as it stands now and it isn't changed, for undead to get their Cha bonus for hit points.

I can never remember the name, but there is an OGL feat from the Tome of Horrors III from Necromancer games that give this ability to undead in 3.5.


humm so it adds cha mod to hp right I could call it unholy resilience, or Graveborn resilience, or unhollowed toughness.... cha to hp isn't a big stretch with undead really, as they have no con...good ideal

Liberty's Edge

KnightErrantJR wrote:

Its standard in PF RPG, as it stands now and it isn't changed, for undead to get their Cha bonus for hit points.

I can never remember the name, but there is an OGL feat from the Tome of Horrors III from Necromancer games that give this ability to undead in 3.5.

Death's Blessing.


Death Knight is used by more then just WotC, to name one major usage, Warcraft uses Death Knight, and has been used in several other media as an undead knight or such. Its kinda like Mind Flayer. Its been used in things other than WotC, all though the proper name for them is copyrighted.


James Jacobs wrote:
Timespike wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

umm what book is unholy toughness in? That sounds like a good ideal.

also In the game I will be using it in most undead cant cross salt, and salt also injures them. Since thats a world thing though I left it out.

glad ya liked it been in my head since I came up with the name. My players are gonna just love it.

Unholy toughness is only on Closed WotC monsters. So come up with a new term. Graveborn resilience, maybe?

We use a similar effect in Pathfinder now and then; we call it unholy fortitude. IIRC; it lets the undead add its Charisma bonus to hit points and fortitude saves?

ANYway... once the PFRPG rolls around, undead recieving hit points from Charisma is in the game at the baseline, so that's good at least.

Unholy fortitude is cool will have to add that

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Darrin Drader wrote:


I'm sorry, but there are certain facts that you seem to keep rolling right on over.

Thank you. I am a lawyer, and Herald's posts were making me cringe. You put it pretty succinctly.

Grand Lodge

Darrin Drader wrote:
Herald wrote:


This isn't about a post on a message board this was, this is a website dedicated to converting old monsters to 3e and 3.5e. It is the site that Clark used to help create the "Tomb of Horrors" which was a product in print.

Once again, if you don't want to use it, thats fine and I respect that and certainly wouldn't twist anyones arm to do so, but the allusion is that this work is tainted and there is no proof that it is.

I'm sorry, but there are certain facts that you seem to keep rolling right on over. First, the death knight is intellectual property that has been owned by WotC since the publication of the 1st edition Fiend Folio. Second, the only way that you can use WotC owned IP is if they've either (a) released it to the SRD, or (b) given you special permission. Third, the fact that it appears on a fan site and WotC hasn't bothered sicking their lawyers on the site to have it removed does not mean that points one and two above are not true. Fourth, the material that appears in the Tome of Horrors was made available and released as open content via a special agreement between Necromancer Games and WotC. No such agreement was made for the death knight, which is why it doesn't appear in the Tome of Horrors. Fifth, the death knight on that page is attached to the OGL, which is why it is in violation. Sixth, releasing a death knight, even if it is pulled from the creature collection at ENWorld, would constitute a challenge to WotC's copyright, and they would then be forced into a position where they would either have to take action or lose the copyright. It is never good advice to suggest to a company that they challenge someone else's copyright.

If you do the research and learn a little bit about how the OGL works and how copyright law works, you would come to the realization that what you're saying is not only incorrect, but very poor advice for someone who is doing this professionally. Fortunately Paizo understands the way things work, but there are others, possibly those...

OK, second time posting this. First time got ate up some how.

So let me start of with this.

I'm sorry and I appologize to everyone here at Paizo and Creature Catalogue (and by some extention Necromancer Games). I have presented some facts that were not true unknowingly, but it is still my fault.

The converted monsters that exist on Creature Catalogue are not in fact OGL as I originally stated. Had I read the entire site including the licence I would have realized that material converted had been done so under special permission from WOTC and not made OGL. To this end I am providing a link to the special licence. Creature Catalogue licence

Here you can read provisions WOTC made Creature Catalogue make to allow them to make the conversions available.

By presenting the Death Knight as being an OGL conversion, when it was indeed not, I presented Creature Catalogue in a light that was less than professional. That is my fault. If anyone seriously thinks that Scott Greene or Creature Catalogue is in violation of the OGL, I invite to read the license on the website for clerification.

Edit for clerification:
Scott Greene is the author of the "Tome of Horrors", a Necromancer Games publication as well as the web master of Creature Catalogue. Much of the material from his site was included in "Tome of Horrors".

In my opinion I think that Dungeon Masters looking for monsters for thier own games would do well to use the site as a referance.

I do not condone using thier material for anything else.

Once again, I am sorry for the confusion, I take responsibility for my actions. Please do not punish anyone for my actions.


So is Blizzard paying WotC like HUGE bundles of money to use the name Death Knight in thier world, or is the Death Knight only IP for d20 rules? Im a little confused.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Malikor wrote:
So is Blizzard paying WotC like HUGE bundles of money to use the name Death Knight in thier world, or is the Death Knight only IP for d20 rules? Im a little confused.

To make matters even worse, the Blizzard-Licensed Warcraft RPG from Sword and Sorcery Studios had Death Knights in a OGL-based game. Were they in violation? Their Death Knights were based on Blizzard IP after all.

Grand Lodge

Malikor wrote:
So is Blizzard paying WotC like HUGE bundles of money to use the name Death Knight in thier world, or is the Death Knight only IP for d20 rules? Im a little confused.

Death Knight is, as I understand it, Trademarked by WOTC. That is how they calim Intellectual Property to the phrase. Just as Pathfinder, RPG Superstar, and others are Intellectualr Property to Paizo.

Trademarking a phrase does not grant exclusive access to the phrase across the board, but rather, in your specific industry and context. While Blizzard and WOTC seem to be awfully close in industry I would think they are classified as being seperate. As such Blizzard can use the phrase all they want and can even Trademark it themselves.

The phrase Death Knight has been used in D&D for decades and at some point I am assuming they Trademarked it. A phrase is not required to be registered to be trademarked. That is why the TM symbol exists. It means the phrase has not been registered, but the company lays calim to teh phrase anyway. It is legally supported in court.


I guess they can name their WoW thing Death Knight for a couple of reasons:

1. It's not too similar to D&D's Death Knight.

2. Death Knight isn't that specific a term. It's like Battle Mage or War Priest or something like that: As long as the builds themselves aren't too similar, no one will make too much noise about the name and a general similarity in concept (after all, things like Death Knight or Battle Mage do evoke a certain concept)

3. If wizards were to sue Activision Blizzard over this, AB might feel annoyed and decide to eradicate D&D with an aggressive ad campaign or something like that. Since we're talking about one of AB's main products and a minor thing even for wizards (and probably not even known at Hasbro), wizards probably couldn't hope to properly counter something like that (they'd lack the money, and of course, we have seen that they lack the competence).

Might sound a bit paranoid, but I do think that Blizzard could do D&D serious harm, and might just do it just to show that if you go up against them, you better mean it.


WotC, or Hasbro, are the one that caved into the Lawsuit about the five rings of L5R after all. Miffed a lot of people off too.

As I understand too, and I may be wrong, but the origonal creatures in the origonal fiend folio were the IP of thier creators, not of TSR. Most of those creatures came from other sources that were not TSR, like WHite Dwarf magazine.

BUt, I do like the idea of changing the name, and my vote is Grave Knight.

Oh, and Lazaro, I second, third, or what not the thanks for the link to Lich King, was SO full of awsomeness :)


Kirth Gersen wrote:
"Grave Knight" has a really nice ring to it. I love it. Kudos to JJ for proposing it, and a nod to Shakor (who wisely recommended separating it into two words).

Thanks for the nod; if it becomes official, my head will a-splode.

Grand Lodge

tallforadwarf wrote:
Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:
Harrow knight. Maybe with some kind of tie in to the dead god. Maybe an attack that causes wildly cascading and contradictory precognitive flashes resulting in confusion. Varisian fortune tellers would be scared to death of them.

Dude - that rocks!

Stolen for my games!

Peace,

tfad

That so ROCKS!

That would be interesting... risen dead paladins of Aroden... the passing of their god had profound repercussions even beyond the grave!

Grand Lodge

Malikor wrote:

WotC, or Hasbro, are the one that caved into the Lawsuit about the five rings of L5R after all. Miffed a lot of people off too.

As I understand too, and I may be wrong, but the origonal creatures in the origonal fiend folio were the IP of thier creators, not of TSR. Most of those creatures came from other sources that were not TSR, like WHite Dwarf magazine.

BUt, I do like the idea of changing the name, and my vote is Grave Knight.

Oh, and Lazaro, I second, third, or what not the thanks for the link to Lich King, was SO full of awsomeness :)

What happened with L5R??? What did I miss? Was it good and juicy?

It just occured to me... how we KNOW Death Knight is IP of Wizard's???

I did check and it is not a REGISTERED Trademark... not that it isn't Trademarked, just not registered.


I like Grave Knight as a name for a creature. Perfectly descriptive: an undead warrior of great skill who has risen from death. Very cool.

Grand Lodge

Upon some further delving...

Death knight was created for Fiend Folio, and White Dwarf did a story on it, not the other way around. Death Knight has also been used in a few other games and by other companies including
Mayfair Games in 1985,
Necromancer Games Tome of Horrors (2002)- though I think someone said that was a licensed product? Was that true?
Mongoose Publishing- Slayer's Guide to Undead (2002).
Green Ronin- Secret College of Necromancy (2002).

Now, I do know a bit about trademark rules (though I am not a lawyer) due to having been on the receiving end once. In order to maintain a trademark, the holder MUST protect the mark. If the holder does not protect the mark it is considered abandoned. So, while Wizards may not have protected their mark, and that is no indication that they do not still hold the trademark, it does mean that it is likely they have dropped their claim. And I know Paizo is not in a situation to try and force the issue over such a trivial thing, it would appear that Wizards has not protected its Trademark, if it ever had one.

Anyone have an original Fiend Folio around to see what it says in front as far as ownership is concerned?


Krome wrote:
Anyone have an original Fiend Folio around to see what it says in front as far as ownership is concerned?

Don't have it handy, but this serves purely for anecdotal information.

As I understand, the pages from Fiend Folio were in part collected from White Dwarf when it was a more generic RPG magazine. In any case, my post is largely irrelevant to the topic.

Given that the link also states that Charles Stross also wrote Githyanki for Fiend Folio, I might balk at Paizo creating a xenophobic warrior race that pays fealty to an immortal Lich Queen called the 'Gyth', so I wholeheartedly agree with Paizo's stance on the situation and their desire to remake classic creatures into something totally unique.


I like both the terms Graveknight and Lich Knight and personally would not mind seeing a couple of different forms of undead knight.

Perhaps the Lich Knight could be any alignment and represent a warrior that cannot die until some task has been completed.

One of the coolest introductions to a 2nd ed. D&D product had an account of a paladin riding through a village at night to warn of an approaching goblin army. He then turned to face the goblins as the village perpared. The fighting was fierce but the goblins were defeated. However, as dawn rose, the villagers could see the old death wounds on the paladin's body. Both he and his mount were undead.

I should also mention that the Skeletal Warrior from Tome of Horrors Revised and the dread skeleton template fro mGreen Ronins Advanced Bestiary usefull in this making undead warriors (though they are not a terrifying as a "death" knight.

Grand Lodge

I like Lich Knight as well. Kind of raises the eyebrow and makes ya go mmmm. I was thinking the other night that powerful undead skeletal-like beings should exist for other classes as well. Lich works for Wizards, and perhaps to some degree as clerics, but I associate them with wizards. Death Knight- or Grave Knight or Lich Knight work for Fighter and Paladin types, maybe Barbaians and Rangers as well. There should be a skeletal being for druids/clerics, rogues/bards, monks as well.

And upon further reading, the Gith are borrowed from an RR Martin story, so how does WOTC lay claim as IP? Since it was not theirs to begin with.

And BTW, I am in no way advocating Paizo contest this stuff, just more pondering and wondering out loud.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You realise that so far we're talking about two different things with nothing in common save the name?

The original Death Knight from AD+D on was skeletal knight friend armed with such goodies as a Power Word: Kill and a 20 dice fireball.

Then other more recent arrival is the sometimes undead sometimes not variety from the upcoming WOW expansion. That prestige class is detailed in the Dark Factions expansion for the WOW d20 game.

It's also worth pointing out that just because something is really cool in one world, wont' make it a great fit in another. The WOW Death Knights are very dependent on their world background for thier character strengths.

Dark Archive

Grave Knight sounds pretty good. Beyond everything already mentioned, Death Templar(although, that just might be too similiar to Death Knight) and Tomb Knight are other options.

EDIT: (((Just realised the post before mine was made more than three weeks ago; oh well)))


Krome wrote:


What happened with L5R??? What did I miss? Was it good and juicy?

Oh, sorry for taking so long to get back. A couple years back, the Olympic Council or what not started a suit against Hasbro/Fiv RIngs or whomever held the property of L5R, that they have an all inclusive rights on 5 rings interlocked. Hasbro decided to cave in, and changed the five rings in a circle to five coins. Thats all.

51 to 84 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Death Knights in Golarion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion