D&D 5E D&D's Inclusivity Language Alterations In Core Rules

In recent months, WotC has altered some of the text found in the original 5th Edition core rulebooks to accommodate D&D's ongoing move towards inclusivity. Many of these changes are reflected on D&D Beyond already--mainly small terminology alterations in descriptive text, rather than rules changes.

Teos Abadia (also known as Alphastream) has compiled a list of these changes. I've posted a very abbreviated, paraphrased version below, but please do check out his site for the full list and context.

• Savage foes changed to brutal, merciless, or ruthless.
• Barbarian hordes changed to invading hordes.
• References to civilized people and places removed.
• Madness or insanity removed or changed to other words like chaos.
• Usage of orcs as evil foes changed to other words like raiders.
• Terms like dim-witted and other synonyms of low intelligence raced with words like incurious.
• Language alterations surrounding gender.
• Fat removed or changed to big.
• Use of terms referring to slavery reduced or altered.
• Use of dark when referring to evil changed to words like vile or dangerous.

This is by no means the full list, and much more context can be found on Alphastream's blog post.

 

[Charlaquin]

@Charlaquin and @Crimson Longinus too!
Okay, I guess being more specific would be helpful, I'll try and be careful.

A typical scenario would be a local orc tribe isn't happy a new human settlement appears and begins poking at the defenses and raiding caravans. You're tasked with wiping them out.

Would you still break out the miniatures and battle-mats and play the dungeon crawl as intended or would the fact they could be misunderstood, misrepresented by the humans, or capable of change turn your game into one of diplomacy? If you decide to talk to them and approach the lair and are attacked by archers, do you feel bad about attacking back? You are on their land after all...

Since in my games orcs are inherently evil, these things are non-issues. Eat Cheetos and hack away! So curious where this isn't the case, how others handle it.

Err… I wouldn’t construct a scenario where the native orc population defending their territory against a colonizing force of humans are depicted as the villains… If anything, I’d turn that on its head.

In general, I’m a fan of deconstructing traditional fantasy tropes. I think the whole orc origin story where Gruumsh was cheated out of a territory for his people by the other gods paints orcs very sympathetically, and is a great metaphor for the evils of colonialism.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Err… I wouldn’t construct a scenario where the native orc population defending their territory against a colonizing force of humans are depicted as the villains… If anything, I’d turn that on its head.

In general, I’m a fan of deconstructing traditional fantasy tropes. I think the whole orc origin story where Gruumsh was cheated out of a territory for his people by the other gods paints orcs very sympathetically, and is a great metaphor for the evils of colonialism.

I always liked that story. Monster Mythology from 2e I believe? Great book!

 

[Alzrius]

Err… I wouldn’t construct a scenario where the native orc population defending their territory against a colonizing force of humans are depicted as the villains… If anything, I’d turn that on its head.

In general, I’m a fan of deconstructing traditional fantasy tropes. I think the whole orc origin story where Gruumsh was cheated out of a territory for his people by the other gods paints orcs very sympathetically, and is a great metaphor for the evils of colonialism.

Keep in mind that story is presented as the myth the orcs tell themselves, and wasn't necessarily presented as being the truth.

 

[Reynard]

@Charlaquin and @Crimson Longinus too!
Okay, I guess being more specific would be helpful, I'll try and be careful.

A typical scenario would be a local orc tribe isn't happy a new human settlement appears and begins poking at the defenses and raiding caravans. You're tasked with wiping them out.

Would you still break out the miniatures and battle-mats and play the dungeon crawl as intended or would the fact they could be misunderstood, misrepresented by the humans, or capable of change turn your game into one of diplomacy? If you decide to talk to them and approach the lair and are attacked by archers, do you feel bad about attacking back? You are on their land after all...

Since in my games orcs are inherently evil, these things are non-issues. Eat Cheetos and hack away! So curious where this isn't the case, how others handle it.

If orcs are people, then being hired to "wipe them out" has its own problems. Besides, a more interesting adventure is probably, "Help resolve the conflict between the local orc tribe and new human settlers." That, too, is a story with a long, rich history in literature and it turns out bad as often as it turns out well.

The point isn't whether or not violence is A solution in that scenario, it is whether violence is THE solution.

 

[Charlaquin]

Keep in mind that story is presented as the myth the orcs tell themselves, and wasn't necessarily presented as being the truth.

Well, I’m also a fan of unreliable narrators and the the gods being mysterious. In my own games, that story might be a mythologized account of the elven colonization of orcish land - certainly many orcs believe that to be the case. Or it might be the literal truth - certainly many other orcs believe that to be the case. Or it might be orcish propaganda - certainly many elves believe that to be the case. I like my fantasy worlds messy and complicated.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Err… I wouldn’t construct a scenario where the native orc population defending their territory against a colonizing force of humans are depicted as the villains… If anything, I’d turn that on its head.

In general, I’m a fan of deconstructing traditional fantasy tropes. I think the whole orc origin story where Gruumsh was cheated out of a territory for his people by the other gods paints orcs very sympathetically, and is a great metaphor for the evils of colonialism.

If orcs are people, then being hired to "wipe them out" has its own problems. Besides, a more interesting adventure is probably, "Help resolve the conflict between the local orc tribe and new human settlers." That, too, is a story with a long, rich history in literature and it turns out bad as often as it turns out well.

The point isn't whether or not violence is A solution in that scenario, it is whether violence is THE solution.

Yeah, very good answers both of these. And even from the simple gaming perspective I find that throwing away black and white morality and making the world more nuanced opens up new avenues to address the situations, thus increasing the agency of the player to come up with their own solutions.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, very good answers both of these. And even from the simple gaming perspective I find that throwing away black and white morality and making the situations more nuanced opens up new avenues to address the situation, thus increasing the agency of the player to come up with their own solutions.

I feel like people think the goal is to make it "not okay" to kill orcs, or whatever. I don't think that is the goal at all. I think the goal is to make "orcs" into people, along with eliminating leftover tropes that are harmful and/or steeped in real world stereotypes. You can still kill orcs -- not because orcs are bad, but because THESE orcs are bad, because they are bandits or because they are evil cultists or whatever.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Can't wait for that all those "incurious" characters with their dump Int stat.

 

[Jahydin]

Thanks for the replies!

I can see how it would lead to more mature and interesting game sessions while still letting you bring out the miniatures for some mayhem.

I'm guessing knowing the group would be important too, since what constitutes "okay to kill" might be different for each player and cause problems?

 

[Parmandur]

I feel like people think the goal is to make it "not okay" to kill orcs, or whatever. I don't think that is the goal at all. I think the goal is to make "orcs" into people, along with eliminating leftover tropes that are harmful and/or steeped in real world stereotypes. You can still kill orcs -- not because orcs are bad, but because THESE orcs are bad, because they are bandits or because they are evil cultists or whatever.

Yeah, it does seem that people in the 20's are more open than maybe people were in the 70's or 80's to the idea that you can get into a lethal conflict with complex morally ambiguous figures, like a group of bandits?