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.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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, literally every orc enemy in existing adventures is fair game, because they're raiders, bandits or members of the enemy military. The change is to kill them because of their role not their ancestry. I think it's hard to argue with this change.

And anyone who still wants to have orcs who are always-evil creatures created by magic or a god, go nuts. You just won't be seeing WotC books featuring that kind of content, that's all.

 

[Reynard]

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?

I don't think your bandits need to be complex and morally ambiguous. They can still be bad guys.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, literally every orc enemy in existing adventures is fair game, because they're raiders, bandits or members of the enemy military. The change is to kill them because of their role not their ancestry. I think it's hard to argue with this change.

And anyone who still wants to have orcs who are always-evil creatures created by magic or a god, go nuts. You just won't be seeing WotC books featuring that kind of content, that's all.

Personally I like my band groups to be mixed. Like, not just a few "monstrous humanoids" but some "demi-huamns" too and maybe some intellegent monsters that don't walk on 2 legs. First, this enhances the fantastical nature of the game. And second, it means I get to use varied opponents with cool different abilities.

 

[GothmogIV]

I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

Can you summarize it? I'm curious.

Honestly, friend, it's all very new to me so I'm a poor choice to explain it. My general rule of thumb is, "don't be a jerk," so I'll file it there.

 

[Blue Orange]

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.

Agree! I always figured the orcs had their own myths where the humans, elves, dwarves, etc. took all their land and they were just trying to get it back.

I loved the little stereotypes each of the clans had for each other in the Vampire: the Masquerade rulebooks. "See, we're the good people you can trust, all the others are crazy or stupid."

 

[GothmogIV]

Here is a direct quote from the book. I'm sharing this so that you'll know where I first heard about it (and, to be clear, I think @SlyFlourish is a great and generous guy in the TTRPG space!) I was not aware that the issue of colonialism was something being discussed in the world of TTRPGs. I had heard about racial essentialism, etc. being discussed as something that some folks were bothered by re: orcs (for example). As I said, this is all brand new information to me, so I am not a great source of thoughtful discourse.

 

[Charlaquin]

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, I mean, while the question of when violence is acceptable is often debated, the idea that violence is never acceptable under any circumstances is a pretty fringe position. So, if the question is “when should violence against orcs be considered acceptable?” I think the obvious answer is “in the same circumstances where it would be acceptable against humans.” Because D&D depicts them as a people, they should be treated like any other people are when it comes to such ethical questions.

 

[Jahydin]

I think my worry stems from a game I played where we were sent to wipe out a small bandit camp that was causing a village issues. We proceeded to fight them as intended (DM had the area, miniatures and all, ready to go) only for a bandit halfway through to start sobbing uncontrollably, babbling about having no choice cause of the king's high taxation and how his wife and kids at home would surely starve without him.

Since we were playing "good guys" to say this ruined the fun was an understatement... especially since our DM was kind of annoyed we didn't want to fight anymore. I think from then on I just wanted to avoid this type of situation completely by having distinct good/evil foes whenever killing is involved.

 

[Blue Orange]

Yeah, literally every orc enemy in existing adventures is fair game, because they're raiders, bandits or members of the enemy military. The change is to kill them because of their role not their ancestry. I think it's hard to argue with this change.

And anyone who still wants to have orcs who are always-evil creatures created by magic or a god, go nuts. You just won't be seeing WotC books featuring that kind of content, that's all.

...it is distressing to see the [British] press grovelling in the gutter as low as Goebbels in his prime, shrieking that any German commander who holds out in a desperate situation (when, too, the military needs of his side clearly benefit) is a drunkard, and a besotted fanatic. ... There was a solemn article in the local [Oxford] paper seriously advocating systematic exterminating of the entire German nation as the only proper course after military victory: because, if you please, they are rattlesnakes, and don't know the difference between good and evil! (What of the writer?) The Germans have just as much right to declare the Poles and Jews exterminable vermin, subhuman, as we have to select the Germans: in other words, no right, whatever they have done. -J.R.R. Tolkien

From Tolkien and race - Wikipedia, which is quite even-handed (also discussing the links to 19th-century eugenics and stereotypes, and which ethnicities orcs have been portrayed as a resembling) and worth a read (at least at the time of access).

 

[Blue Orange]

I think my worry stems from a game I played where we were sent to wipe out a small bandit camp that was causing a village issues. We proceeded to fight them as intended (DM had the area, miniatures and all, ready to go) only for a bandit halfway through to start sobbing uncontrollably, babbling about having no choice cause of the king's high taxation and how his wife and kids at home would surely starve without him.

Since we were playing "good guys" to say this ruined the fun was an understatement... especially since our DM was kind of annoyed we didn't want to fight anymore. I think from then on I just wanted to avoid this type of situation completely by having distinct good/evil foes whenever killing is involved.

I guess. To me sounds like the springboard for a fun campaign where you turn coat and take on the king...but if that's not what your DM was aiming for, why suddenly humanize the enemy?