Tuesday, April 15, 2025

REPOST: The Articles of Dragon: "For NPCs Only: The Death Master"

Ah, that staple of Dragon from back in the day: the "NPC only" class. One of the oddities of the magazine was that, while there was a voracious demand for new character classes, as a house organ of TSR, it could never offer up a new class for use with D&D without a formal caveat, unless it came from the pen of Gary Gygax himself. Of course, this was done with a nod and a wink, as no referee I knew back in the day ever refrained from allowing his players to use "NPC only" classes if he felt they were well done and fit the spirit of his campaign. I know I never had any problems with it, though, to be fair, I was choosy and, in any event, most of the new classes presented in Dragon were so specialized as to have limited appeal.

Still, the presentation of Len Lakofka's death master class in issue #76 (August 1983) went above and beyond those of most other classes in terms of making it clear that it was intended only for NPCs. You can see the title of the article in which it appeared above. In addition to the "For NPCs Only" phrasing, there's the subtitle that calls the class a "monster" and notes that one shouldn't consider playing as a death master. Even more notably, the article itself begins with an "Introduction/Sermon" where Lakofka opines
The AD&D game should not have assassin player characters. In fact, no player character should be evil at all unless adverse magic affects him.
This is an interesting, though not unusual, point of view, especially as the '80s rolled on. It's also worth noting that assassins were eventually eliminated from AD&D in its second edition, a point of view even Gygax toyed with on occasion, though for different reasons. In any case, Lakofka continues in his introduction to explain that he feels evil is treated too casually in the game. One of his reasons for creating the death master class was to rectify this.
As a way of putting evil in its often without enough of a penalty proper place, here is presented an evil character that makes an assassin look like the boy next door. The death master is meant as a non-player character -- one the player characters and their party have to defeat. Please use the character that way only. If I ever run into a player character death master at a convention, I may turn evil myself. . .
Again, it's an interesting point of view, especially when viewed against the changing culture surrounding D&D at that time. Naturally, Lakofka's concerns had zero effect on me at the time, since there was for a brief time a PC death master in my old campaign – brief, because he was eventually slain by the other PCs, but I allowed the class nonetheless. The PC in question was a formerly good character turned to evil by possession of the Hand of Vecna and who became obsessed with eliminating his former companions in the belief that they would eventually destroy him. He was right, as it turned out, though, ironically, his destruction was more the result of his repeated attempts to slay the other PCs than their own desire to see his life ended. In any event, I didn't heed Lakofka's warnings and I'd be amazed if I were the only one.

The death master class itself is somewhat interesting. It's basically a necromancer, with many powers over the undead and a collection of new spells. Beginning at 4th level, the class also gains the ability to make a variety of "potions, salves, and pastes" that replicate some of his spells and class abilities. At the time, I found it an impressive addition, since it spelled out a bit more explicitly the crafting of magic items than was seen elsewhere. In retrospect, I'm not sure a new class was needed, when new spells alone could have probably sufficed, but that was the style at the time. Regardless, I'm not at all convinced that the death master did anything to advance the notion that evil should be Evil and never an option for player characters.

18 comments:

  1. Jim Hodges---
    I hadn't known of this class, and find it interesting. The fact death masters were conceived of and dangled out there only to be pulled away from us at the same time is a facet of what became increasingly wrong with the game as the eighties progressed: great ideas softened out of fear of societal disapprobation. Frankly the addition of this type of character would have done much to deepen D&D at a time when the emphasis seemed to be on making it more shallow. Evil is a theme that has rested at the heart of storytelling across the ages, in mythology, literature, even the scriptures of all religions, and it's a valid subject. A shame death masters were thought up and then shied away from.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Huntsman anti ranger from my favorite Dragon module was the all around fave. And the art alone for that module was so inspiring for a campaign setting. Valley of the Earth Mother, issue 102, by Lise Breakey

    ReplyDelete
  3. We believed the Anti-Paladin was the ultimate evil character class, helped in no small way by the Fineous Fingers comic strip. In our defense, we were all 10 and everything about D&D was so amazingly new to us.

    ReplyDelete
  4. yeah, there were a lot of these "NPC only" classes in Dragon, but nobody I knew took the restriction seriously. If the DM approved, you could have a Death Master PC. There was this one guy, really weird, who always played a ninja. Didn't matter what race the character was, and according to the Dragon article, any race could have ninjas. The class was incredibly broken. IT got to the point where nobody wanted to be at the same table with him at the game club when playing AD&D. Anything else was fine. But this guy was obsessed. He even wore the weird two toed ninja shoes. He looked funny with his pear-shaped body. And the piped he smoked! OMG! GAG! Sorry...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Man, that weird fascination with ninjas America went through in the late 80’s….
      It was cringeworthy. I can’t count how many friends owned nunchucks and smacked themselves either in the eye, or somewhere far more painful.
      I credit Chris Farley, in Beverly Hills Ninja, for putting the final nail in that coffin.
      Of course, that fad was followed by ‘Skinny Jeans’, so there’s that….

      Delete
    2. Yeah, but skinny jeans had been preceded by 'designer jeans' worn so tight you needed to put vaseline on your legs to get them on (did anyone really do that?)

      Delete
    3. Late 80s? This was back in the late 70s. The whole martial arts thing was becoming really popular then. The article for the Ninja came out in issue #18 in 1978.

      Delete
    4. Did you mean Dragon #16? I gamed at MIT where Sheldon Price was a member. There was a number of folks very interested in Japanese culture there (and later they got into "Japanimation" - anime). Great group of people actually.

      Delete
    5. uh sure...in the teens somewhere...

      Delete
    6. It wasn't just America. Japan itself went through a ninja boom in the 1980s, although with an ironic streak of "making fun of weird ideas foreigners have about Japan" that was absent from the American version. Where do you think video games like Ninja Gaiden came from?

      Delete
  5. This came out during the early part of my high school days, and this was the NPC class of which everyone else said, "Man, I wish I could play this...." but no one ever used one as a villain. No one played one, either, the DMs and other players were strict on that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Len wasn't the only member of the "old guard" who felt that evil classes and characters shouldn't be a part of the game. Heck I've heard interviews with some (though now I'm forgetting who...maybe Zeb?) who even decried there being a thief class!

    Which just goes to show that even before 2E and the late-80s plenty of grogs has a pretty baked-in world view of the game as being about heroic heroes. The Hickman's were playing that way long before DragonLance.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've never understood the problem with players having evil PCs. Who cares? It's just a game. Plus the fact that the DM has evil NPCs. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    ReplyDelete
  8. the problem isn't usually with evil PCs because they're evil. Arguably all of Dave and Gary's parties were trigger-happy looters, which is certainly how current D&D treats characters like Mordenkainen. The problem was that players with "evil" PC's tended to be griefers that just made the party nonfunctional. Thieves would steal from their own party and such. Plus friction between LG Paladins and N to CE thieves were as problematic from group cohesion as the friction between pro-Magic-Items mages and anti-Magic-Items barbarians. Evil characters are just easier to keep out of a campaign.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our experiences were much the same. It seemed to be more a matter of an evil-ish player than character. The game is supposed to be fun, a component of which is rowing generally in the same direction. If you're the clown that thinks it's funny to pour lighter fluid on roadkill and set it ablaze as the school bus is pulling up . . . pass. Spicing an adventure set with a bit of internal intrigue and a few actionable quirks is one thing. Railroading a foray with goblin-child-torture and other nonsense is stupid, pointless and silly. Someday you are going to wave your butterfly knife at a Marine and he'll kill you with it.

      Delete
  9. I can't recall ever running a prohibition on evil characters (and I'm as 2e a guy as there is), but at the same time I never had many of them. I think there was a general understanding that evil characters were difficult to play "correctly" without frequently putting them at odds with the rest of the group -- which, if your group is in to that, is part of the fun.

    If I were to ban a player alignment, more likely it would be Chaotic Neutral. I have seen, by this point in my career, far too many "hilariously random" Chaotic Neutral characters. No please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a joke, we called Chaotic Neutral, "Chaotic Weird"

      Delete
  10. Gygax and Kuntz and the Lake Geneva crew certainly played evil PCs BITD, and some of the shift away from that came as a result of the broadening audience for the game in the early 1980s: between the basic sets, Endless Quest books, and the TV cartoon, the "Angry Mothers From Heck" mentality began creeping into the marketing and design of the game well-before 2e. Let's not forget that the game was originally designed for and marketed to college-age, adult wargamers. Not to 10-12 year olds.

    With respect to the death master class itself, I liked the class fine when it was first published, and while we played many of Dragon's NPC-only classes in our groups---including Bandit, Duelist, Time Lord, Ninja, Healer, Berserkers, Anti-Paladin, Samauri, Archer, Bounty Hunter, and Witch---the death master was never one that ended up being played as a PC.

    And while I liked the death master, I didn't feel like it really made the case that the class was the uber-evil class that Lakofka positioned it as. When I designed my own Necromancer class, it was in part a response to the death master to show was a truly heinous class would look like, and to address what I saw as gaps in its capabilities. I certainly drew on Lakofka's class functions and spells in my version (as well as various others from REF5 Lords of Darkness) in my attempt to redesign them. You can read it at https://www.greyhawkonline.com/grodog/temp/The_Necromancer_by_grodog.pdf if you're curious.

    Lastly, all of that said, I do find the idea laughable that we should obfuscate and mollify the evil forces in the game, and agree with the first comment from Jim Hodges above. When I began to craft my drowic dark markets setting (building out on the model of D3 Vault of the Drow and its underworld environs), this is the content warning that I wrote to preface it:

    "Content Warning: Gary Gygax’s seminal introduction of the drow to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons portrays their culture and society as chaotic and evil—drow are demon-worshipping villains who actively engage in slavery, torture, and human sacrifice. This article leverages and extends that baseline depiction into the underworld markets that support and slake their lusts to demonstrate that drow are the antithesis for all that is good in the world: in both our—real—world, as well as in the World of Greyhawk fantasy game setting.

    As one of the prime embodiments of chaos and evil in AD&D, my rendition of the drow draws from the fey taint of the Unseelie Court, as well as the decadence and decay from Michael Moorcock’s depiction of the Bright Empire of Melniboné in his Elric saga stories. Humankind, elves, and all other surface-dwellers are inferior creatures doomed to suffer when the drow draw such victims into their spheres of influence.

    Before bringing the depths of the evils of drowic practices alive at your gaming table, check-in with your players about their level of willingness to deal with the sensitive topics that may arise in drow-focused game play."

    We'll eventually see if the content lives up to its billing in the warning ;)

    Allan.

    ReplyDelete