"Race" in D&D

As a social scientist who studies male-dominated subcultures, I have done research that put me in spaces where I delved into reactions to issues of race in gaming. A key question is this: Given how charged the term race has been, why would games use it to discuss differences that have nothing to do with the way we traditionally use the word? Dungeons & Dragons is not the only game to use the term in this way; so have many other digital and analog fantasy offerings. But the celebrated game, created by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson in 1973, arguably set the standard that these others have followed. Gygax and Arnesonleaned heavily on popular fiction and folklore to construct their game world, and links to fantasy author J.R.R. Tolkien’s works, which were first penned in an age of colonial racism, are undeniable. In his Lord of the Rings trilogy, Tolkien commonly used the word race to characterize differences among humans, elves, hobbits—all of the societies that populated his novels. Because this was familiar territory for so-called sword-and-sorcery fans, the creators of Dungeons & Dragons simply co-opted it, as it would create a recognizable point of reference for potential gamers.

So biological essentialism ran deep in the game. In its earliest versions, the authors distinguished between humans and other groups, collectively called “demihumans.” Notably, players who chose to be dwarves, elves, halflings or other demihumans had limits that humans did not have. They were lesser beings. They could only have certain professions in the game (referred to as classes), could only progress so far, and had built-in limitations (for example, sturdy but somewhat slow and dour dwarves had constitution advantages, but limits on their dexterity and charisma). Further, all demihumans had some form of seeing in the dark, which marked them as something in between humans and animals.

The most often cited element of biological determinism in the early game, however, was a table created in the first edition of the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons game that dictated which demihuman cultures would get along easily or have a natural dislike. Elves and dwarves had antipathy, by fiat. Neither liked half-orcs. And gnomes for some reason only tolerated half-elves.

This was often discussed in the same breath of “evil races,” as different species were assigned an overall cultural moral stance, with some—such as orcs—deemed inherently evil. Particularly since the influx of new fans with the fourth edition of Dungeons & Dragons, these ideas were roundly criticized by scholars and others as reinforcing a sense of “nature not nurture” in terms of racism, discrimination and morality, echoing human genetics’ origins in white supremacy, marking some groups as inherently “bad.” Scholars such as Benjamin Carpenter of the University of East Anglia have noted that the races labeled as “evil” had analogues that were sometimes associated with real-world racial and ethnic minority groups, essentially smuggling old prejudices and stereotypes through a game.

Throughout the years, different editions of Dungeons & Dragons have reconsidered some of these components of essentialism. Level limitations for different racial groups were removed along with gaming stat limitations on nonhuman species, providing different systems to explain their advantages and disadvantages. Wizards of the Coast has reworked the game’s system of morality, called alignment, in recent editions, and eliminated the concept of evil races. The fifth edition and 2024 modification reintroduced species like orcs and dark elves in a manner that pushes back on their historical characterizations as evil cultures and inherently “bad” species. Social media voices, such as the Slovenly Trulls podcast, are discussing other game components that might need to be reconsidered, like misogyny and discrimination.