D&D Historian Benn Riggs On Gary Gygax & Sexism

The recent book The Making of Original Dungeons & Dragons 1970-1977 talks about the early years of D&D. In the book, authors Jon Peterson and Jason Tondro talk about the way the game, and its writers, approached certain issues. Not surprisingly, this revelation received aggressive "pushback" on social media because, well, that sort of thing does--in fact, one designer who worked with Gygax at the time labelled it "slanderous".

D&D historian Ben Riggs--author of Slaying the Dragon--delved into the facts. Note that the below was posted on Twitter, in that format, not as an article.

D&D Co-Creator Gary Gygax was Sexist. Talking About it is Key to Preserving his Legacy.

The internet has been rending its clothes and gnashing its teeth over the introduction to an instant classic of TTRPG history, The Making of Original D&D 1970-1977. Published by Wizards of the Coast, it details the earliest days of D&D’s creation using amazing primary source materials.

Why then has the response been outrage from various corners of the internet? Well authors Jon Peterson and Jason Tondro mention that early D&D made light of slavery, disparaged women, and gave Hindu deities hit points. They also repeated Wizard’s disclaimer for legacy content which states:"These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed."

In response to this, an army of grognards swarmed social media to bite their shields and bellow. Early D&D author Rob Kuntz described Peterson and Tondro’s work as “slanderous.” On his Castle Oldskull blog, Kent David Kelly called it “disparagement.” These critics are accusing Peterson and Tondro of dishonesty. Lying, not to put too fine a point on it.So, are they lying? Are they making stuff up about Gary Gygax and early D&D?

Well, let's look at a specific example of what Peterson and Tondro describe as “misogyny “ from 1975's Greyhawk. Greyhawk was the first supplement ever produced for D&D. Written by Gary Gygax and Rob Kuntz, the same Rob Kuntz who claimed slander above, it was a crucial text in the history of the game. For example, it debuted the thief character class. It also gave the game new dragons, among them the King of Lawful Dragons and the Queen of Chaotic Dragons. The male dragon is good, and female dragon is evil. (See Appendix 1 below for more.)

​

It is a repetition of the old trope that male power is inherently good, and female power is inherently evil. (Consider the connotations of the words witch and wizard, with witches being evil by definition, for another example.)

Now so-called defenders of Gygax and Kuntz will say that my reading of the above text makes me a fool who wouldn’t know dragon’s breath from a virtue signal. I am ruining D&D with my woke wokeness. Gygax and Kuntz were just building a fun game, and decades later, Peterson and Tondro come along to crap on their work by screeching about misogyny.

(I would also point out that as we are all white men of a certain age talking about misogyny, the worst we can expect is to be flamed online. Women often doing the same thing get rape or death threats.)

Critics of their work would say that Peterson and Tondro are reading politics into D&D. Except that when we return to the Greyhawk text, we see that it was actually Gygax and Kuntz who put “politics” into D&D.

The text itself comments on the fact that the lawful dragon is male, and the chaotic one is female. Gygax and Kuntz wrote: “Women’s lib may make whatever they wish from the foregoing.”

​

The intent is clear. The female is a realm of chaos and evil, so of course they made their chaotic evil dragon a queen.

Yes, Gygax and Kuntz are making a game, but it is a game whose co-creator explicitly wrote into the rules that feminine power—perhaps even female equality—is by nature evil. There is little room for any other interpretation.

The so-called defenders of Gygax may now say that he was a man of his time, he didn’t know better, or some such. If only someone had told him women were people too in 1975! Well, Gygax was criticized for this fact of D&D at the time. And he left us his response.

Writing in EUROPA, a European fanzine, Gygax said:“I have been accused of being a nasty old sexist-male-Chauvinist-pig, for the wording in D&D isn’t what it should be. There should be more emphasis on the female role, more non-gendered names, and so forth."

"I thought perhaps these folks were right and considered adding women in the ‘Raping and Pillaging[’] section, in the ‘Whores and Tavern Wenches’ chapter, the special magical part dealing with ‘Hags and Crones’...and thought perhaps of adding an appendix on ‘Medieval Harems, Slave Girls, and Going Viking’. Damn right I am sexist. It doesn’t matter to me if women get paid as much as men, get jobs traditionally male, and shower in the men’s locker room."

"They can jolly well stay away from wargaming in droves for all I care. I’ve seen many a good wargame and wargamer spoiled thanks to the fair sex. I’ll detail that if anyone wishes.”

So just to summarize here, Gygax wrote misogyny into the D&D rules. When this was raised with him as an issue at the time, his response was to offer to put rules on rape and sex slavery into D&D.

The outrage online directed at Peterson and Tondro is not only entirely misplaced and disproportional, and perhaps even dishonest in certain cases...

Part 2: D&D Co-Creator Gary Gygax was Sexist. Talking About it is Key to Preserving his Legacy....it is also directly harming the legacies of Gygax, Arneson, Kuntz and the entire first generation of genius game designers our online army of outraged grognards purport to defend.

How? Let me show you.The D&D player base is getting more diverse in every measurable way, including age, gender, sexual orientation, and race. To cite a few statistics, 81% of D&D players are Millenials or Gen Z, and 39% are women. This diversity is incredible, and not because the diversity is some blessed goal unto itself. Rather, the increasing diversity of D&D proves the vigor of the TTRPG medium. Like Japanese rap music or Soviet science fiction, the transportation of a medium across cultures, nations, and genders proves that it is an important method for exploring the human condition. And while TTRPGs are a game, they are also clearly an important method for exploring the human condition. The fact the TTRPG fanbase is no longer solely middle-aged Midwestern cis men of middle European descent...

...the fact that non-binary blerds and Indigenous trans women and fat Polish-American geeks like me and people from every bed of the human vegetable garden ...

find meaning in a game created by two white guys from the Midwest is proof that Gygax and Arneson were geniuses who heaved human civilization forward, even if only by a few feet.

So, as a community, how do we deal with the ugly prejudices of our hobby’s co-creator who also baked them into the game we love? We could pretend there is no problem at all, and say that anyone who mentions the problem is a liar. There is no misogyny to see. There is no **** and there is no stink, and anyone who says there is naughty word on your sneakers is lying and is just trying to embarrass you.

I wonder how that will go? Will all these new D&D fans decide that maybe D&D isn’t for them? They know the stink of misogyny, just like they know **** when they smell it. To say it isn’t there is an insult to their intelligence. If they left the hobby over this, it would leave our community smaller, poorer, and suggest that the great work of Gygax, Arneson, Kuntz, and the other early luminaries on D&D was perhaps not so great after all…

We could take the route of Disney and Song of the South. Wizards could remove all the PDFs of early D&D from DriveThruRPG. They could refuse to ever reprint this material again. Hide it. Bury it. Erase it all with copyright law and lawyers. Yet no matter how deeply you bury the past, it always tends to come back up to the surface again. Heck, there are whole podcast series about that. And what will all these new D&D fans think when they realize that a corporation tried to hide its own mistakes from them?

Again, maybe they decide D&D isn’t the game for them. Or maybe when someone tells you there is **** on your shoe, you say thanks, clean it off, and move on.

We honor the old books, but when they tell a reader they are a lesser human being, we should acknowledge that is not the D&D of 2024. Something like...

“Hey reader, we see you in all your wondrous multiplicity of possibility, and if we were publishing this today, it wouldn’t contain messages and themes telling some of you that you are less than others. So we just want to warn you. That stuff’s in there.”

Y’know, something like that legacy content warning they put on all those old PDFs on DriveThruRPG. And when we see something bigoted in old D&D, we talk about it. It lets the new, broad, and deep tribe of D&D know that we do not want bigotry in D&D today. Talking about it welcomes the entire human family into the hobby.To do anything less is to damn D&D to darkness. It hobbles its growth, gates its community, denies the world the joy of the game, and denies its creators their due. D&D’s creators were visionary game designers. They were also people, and people are kinda ****** up. So a necessary step in making D&D the sort of cultural pillar that it deserves to be is to name its bigotries and prejudices when you see them. Failure to do so hurts the game by shrinking our community and therefore shrinking the legacy of its creators.

Appendix 1: Yeah, I know Chaos isn’t the same as Evil in OD&D.

But I would also point out as nerdily as possible that on pg. 9 of Book 1 of OD&D, under “Character Alignment, Including Various Monsters and Creatures,” Evil High Priests are included under the “Chaos” heading, along with the undead. So I would put to you that Gygax did see a relationship between Evil and Chaos at the time.

Ben Riggs​

Look, folks, we know how a conversation like this goes on the internet. Because, internet. Read the rules you agreed to before replying. The banhammer will be used on those who don't do what they agreed to.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No. It's disingenuous. And virtually always done in bad faith. I mean, good grief, it's DEFINED as arguing in bad faith. That's why people call it out. Using "whatabout" arguements are a bad faith attempt to confuse the topic and attack those whose position on a topic are too strong to be directly countered.

Although there is a fine line between whataboutism and putting things into context.
In this case, trying to relate things that are 50 years apart and very different is a bit difficult to justify...

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

So are you calling me, specifically, a whale, or are you just being casually insulting?

I'm saying you have more disposable income than the average gamer.

I am not part of the gambling world and was unaware of any implicit insult in the term and did not mean to suggest anything insulting.

 

[Clint_L]

I'm saying you have more disposable income than the average gamer.

I am not part of the gambling world and was unaware of any implicit insult in the term and did not mean to suggest anything insulting.

Calling someone a whale is an insult. Period. It’s the same as calling them a sucker, a mark, etc. Unless you are referring to their weight. Which is a different insult.

 

[Steampunkette]

So... I just wanna throw this out there:

Gygax wasn't a "Product of his Time" any more than Robert E. Howard or Howard Phillips Lovecraft. Both of whom were called out, in their time, for being way too racist. Like so racist as to be upsetting to other people who were also raised in the same racist environments. In the 20s and 30s. In New England -and- in freaking Texas.

That's just an excuse we use to bury the problems people had that were called out -in their time- and continue to grow more and more monstrous as society progresses past their time. It's a handwavium platitude to pardon their actions and negative legacy without addressing that legacy.

In the Europa article he wrote in his own words, Gygax's response to being called a sexist was to offer to write entire chapters about women being sex objects and victims of sexual assault. Then to actively declare that he was a sexist.

You wanna talk about "Product of his Time"?

Imagine someone so transphobic, today, that when called out on their transphobia they don't bother to hide behind justifications about "Protecting Children" or "Keeping Integrity in Sport" or whatever other facade people currently hide their bigotry behind. And instead they just went "Yup. I'm openly transphobic. In fact in my next book of the game I'm producing I'm going to write an entire chapter about how trans people are all sexual deviants and child abusers just to make it worse for the people who called me out on being a transphobe!"

Transphobia's still pretty well mainstream, though there's a concerted push to try and get rid of it. But someone outright stating "Yes, I'm a transphobe!" would not be looked at as a "Product of the Times" we're in, but someone who is outright bigoted and wrong.

That's what Gygax did when he claimed to be a Sexist in 1975.

And yeah. It's part of what he was doing when he called out "Women's Lib" when he explicitly wrote about the evil queen and the good king. He knew what he was doing. And his attitudes didn't change even all the way to 2005 on THESE VERY FORUMS where he dismissed, outright, the -idea- that women -could- enjoy TTRPGs.

Nevermind that by 2005 Margaret Weiss had been playing the game for over 30 years and he had had a professional career with her for decades as an author. Nevermind the millions of other women who played D&D and other TTRPGs on a regular basis.

The man was a devout sexist because he truly, sincerely, and against all evidence to the contrary, that women were lesser and separate and should be kept so.

Reconcile that with your image of the man, like the rest of us had to. And then look to how his sexist perspectives shaped D&D and work to rectify those influences. Like the rest of us are trying.

 

[Vaalingrade]

But if the framed question was, why are you singling out gygax when Wotc has just as bad of a track record (what about wotc).

Because the discussion is about a book about the creation of the original D&D and the reaction to that book.

Which is so far from having anything to do with WotC, that light will not cross that distance before the heat heat of both our universe and the next.

 

[ENWorldUser]

This is a bit ridic. GG was a known sexist and this did sneak into the books, but certainly not for the Tiamat example. Tiamat is historically a female god from Babylonian mythology. I am all for PC and respect, but if you accept this as a "trope" are we now going to make Takhisis a male in Dragonlance?!

 

[Steampunkette]

This is a bit ridic. GG was a known sexist and this did sneak into the books, but certainly not for the Tiamat example. Tiamat is historically a female god from Babylonian mythology. I am all for PC and respect, but if you accept this as a "trope" are we now going to make Takhisis a male in Dragonlance?!

So why'd he include the specific "Women's Lib" crack?

Because it was part of his sexism.

"Tiamat was always female!" Yup. Why'd he choose Tiamat, who was once a river goddess that the Babylonians and Akkadians altered from the initial Sumerian myths into a monstrous force their chief deity would go on to slay in order to dismantle matriarchal religious groups and portray them as both weaker and wicked? You know, rather than literally any other entity or even a character of his own design?

Why didn't he just choose to make Tiamat into the good and noble queen of dragons rather than the evil queen? After all, Bahamut is a monstrous fish that swims through the waters of life with the ox Kuyuta on his back while an angel stands on the bull's back and holds up the world on his shoulders. What part of "Giant fish with a bull standing on it" screams "Noble Platinum Dragon King of All Good Dragons"?

Spoiler: Behold, the king of good dragons pictured at bottom.

Like I get the desire. But just accept it that he was a sexist who wrote sexist material because he absorbed sexist interpretations and fantasy and move on rather than trying to defend the sexist material he wrote with anachronistic 'gotchya' arguments.

Also: He didn't "Sneak" anything. He was open about it. VERY open about it. And people tolerated it 'cause it was his game and/or they were indoctrinated into sexism, themselves.

 

[Zardnaar]

So... I just wanna throw this out there:

Gygax wasn't a "Product of his Time" any more than Robert E. Howard or Howard Phillips Lovecraft. Both of whom were called out, in their time, for being way too racist. Like so racist as to be upsetting to other people who were also raised in the same racist environments. In the 20s and 30s. In New England -and- in freaking Texas.

That's just an excuse we use to bury the problems people had that were called out -in their time- and continue to grow more and more monstrous as society progresses past their time. It's a handwavium platitude to pardon their actions and negative legacy without addressing that legacy.

In the Europa article he wrote in his own words, Gygax's response to being called a sexist was to offer to write entire chapters about women being sex objects and victims of sexual assault. Then to actively declare that he was a sexist.

You wanna talk about "Product of his Time"?

Imagine someone so transphobic, today, that when called out on their transphobia they don't bother to hide behind justifications about "Protecting Children" or "Keeping Integrity in Sport" or whatever other facade people currently hide their bigotry behind. And instead they just went "Yup. I'm openly transphobic. In fact in my next book of the game I'm producing I'm going to write an entire chapter about how trans people are all sexual deviants and child abusers just to make it worse for the people who called me out on being a transphobe!"

Transphobia's still pretty well mainstream, though there's a concerted push to try and get rid of it. But someone outright stating "Yes, I'm a transphobe!" would not be looked at as a "Product of the Times" we're in, but someone who is outright bigoted and wrong.

That's what Gygax did when he claimed to be a Sexist in 1975.

And yeah. It's part of what he was doing when he called out "Women's Lib" when he explicitly wrote about the evil queen and the good king. He knew what he was doing. And his attitudes didn't change even all the way to 2005 on THESE VERY FORUMS where he dismissed, outright, the -idea- that women -could- enjoy TTRPGs.

Nevermind that by 2005 Margaret Weiss had been playing the game for over 30 years and he had had a professional career with her for decades as an author. Nevermind the millions of other women who played D&D and other TTRPGs on a regular basis.

The man was a devout sexist because he truly, sincerely, and against all evidence to the contrary, that women were lesser and separate and should be kept so.

Reconcile that with your image of the man, like the rest of us had to. And then look to how his sexist perspectives shaped D&D and work to rectify those influences. Like the rest of us are trying.

I was one who said something like he was a product of their time. Gary said those words.

Everyone comes from a different back ground and life experiences. Not everyone's had a nice comfy middle class American lifestyle.

There's a couple of members of my family I regard as outright evil. One got gassed in the trenches WW1 and came back probably with ptsd and psychological trauma. I can't really say what he got up to.

Grandmother was raised by him. She was basically horrible and racist towards certain people because of the war. Went to a family reunion and our line was the second smallest the smallest line was functionally extinct. Distinct lack of males. They all died in the war years the 2 survivors died young (industrial accident deep fried and a heart attack). Her family departed on troop ships most didn't come back one came back a monster. America didn't bother turning up until 1917. Late for pt 2 as well.

My mother was more or less contemporary with Gary (born 1941). She was forced to leave school aged 14 because she was a female. No point educating them (according to her parents). Born on a whaling station.

My grandmother was about a 6/10 evil scale. She was also physically abusive. Mothers first husband was about a 8.5 on the evil scale.

Fast forward to 90s our D&D group was pretty much all from broken homes. The 2 from intact families both of their parents divorced later. I dodged the worst of it relative to everyone else. I didn't get SA or on methadone by age 18.

I don't really care about what Gary said just pushing back about "Product of their time" comment. There were better attitudes around but it was far from universal in USA let alone other countries. Wasn't illegal to rape your wife until 1986 (we let women vote 27 years before USA). My older brothers got the cane at school they made that illegal 1986. My school used a leather strap instead.

So when I say "Product of its time" I'm not justifying it but I'm aware of how awful things are and I dodged the worst of it (born 1978). All I had to do was get a job aged 13, buying my own clothes and shoes aged 15. I was the first to graduate university in my family, sister graduated recently and she was born 1967.

As said I would be more surprised if Gary had different views. Born 1938, small town USA, didn't go to university afaik. I'm not a big fan of his work either it's about a C on a tier list.

I think Gen X broke a 100 year cycle though. I did it by not breeding.

 

[teitan]

It's a fair article but I have one point of contention: Tiamat is a Sumerian goddess, she was a dragon and she personified chaos so Gygax and Kuntz were following actual mythology with the Queen of the Dragons. Doesn't take away from the idea it is inherently sexist but they chose a goddess who was the mother of dragons, chaos, commanded monsters, to be their evil queen.

 

[teitan]

So why'd he include the specific "Women's Lib" crack?

Because it was part of his sexism.

Not only his sexism but was an acceptable joke at that time in popular culture. So it was an inherent cultural phenomenon.