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.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Don't really have to guess.

Just have to enjoy the sound of silence.

Why make these kinds of assumptions about people hussar? It isn't like being concerned about Orwellian language in modern media is incompatible with understanding that there is an atrocious history of human slavery in the US. One reason people are concerned about things Orwellian, as was mentioned before when text books came up, is that kind of historical information being stealthily removed from classrooms (and when that came up I made the point that Orwellian removal of slavery from text books is a much greater problem than changing terms in an RPG---the latter matters to us simply because it is relevant to us as gamers, but the former affects the whole culture and denies a significant part of our history).

 

[Hussar]

Why make these kinds of assumptions about people hussar? It isn't like being concerned about Orwellian language in modern media is incompatible with understanding that there is an atrocious history of human slavery in the US. One reason people are concerned about things Orwellian, as was mentioned before when text books came up, is that kind of historical information being stealthily removed from classrooms (and when that came up I made the point that Orwellian removal of slavery from text books is a much greater problem than changing terms in an RPG---the latter matters to us simply because it is relevant to us as gamers, but the former affects the whole culture and denies a significant part of our history).

Dude. In every single post in this thread you have repeated the word Orwell or Orwellian save maybe one or two.

Maybe, just maybe, actually LEARN what the word means before banging that drum? Do you really think you're point is being helped by endlessly repeating the same point over and over and over again? Reread your posts. Save a couple, you've invoked Orwell EVERY SINGLE POST.

A company choosing to change the language in their own product because they feel that the language is not as inclusive as it could be IS NOT ORWELLIAN IN THE SLIGHTEST.

Why make these kinds of assumptions? Prove me wrong. Surprise me for a change. I make these kinds of assumptions because every single time this topic comes up, you say EXACTLY the same things, bring up EXACTLY the same reasons and then refuse to accept any sort of alternative.

So, yeah, I'm fairly comfortable in my assumptions.

 

[Hussar]

See below. You are incorrect. The post I was responding to says exactly what I claimed.

Congratulations on being technically correct. Well done you. Excellent job.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Dude. In every single post in this thread you have repeated the word Orwell or Orwellian save maybe one or two.

Maybe, just maybe, actually LEARN what the word means before banging that drum? Do you really think you're point is being helped by endlessly repeating the same point over and over and over again? Reread your posts. Save a couple, you've invoked Orwell EVERY SINGLE POST.

A company choosing to change the language in their own product because they feel that the language is not as inclusive as it could be IS NOT ORWELLIAN IN THE SLIGHTEST.

Why make these kinds of assumptions? Prove me wrong. Surprise me for a change. I make these kinds of assumptions because every single time this topic comes up, you say EXACTLY the same things, bring up EXACTLY the same reasons and then refuse to accept any sort of alternative.

So, yeah, I'm fairly comfortable in my assumptions.

It is a perfectly valid use of the term. We can debate whether it is Orwellian. But the tsetse is entirely fair (you don’t have to agree with it, that is fair).

And you aren’t even really engaging my post. You essentially accused posters taking the position I am as caring about changes to an RPG but not having the same concern over issues stemming from the history of slsvery.

I don’t expect you to agree with my posts. I do think I put thought and consideration into them. Not sure why you are always do hostile (but I am not your punching bag, so not going to respond if you continue in this way, I will just put you on ignore)

 

[Bedrockgames]

A company choosing to change the language in their own product because they feel that the language is not as inclusive as it could be IS NOT ORWELLIAN IN THE SLIGHTEST.

the reason I find it Orwellian is they are changing the 2014 version if the book in substantive ways, that make it seems they were more enlightened at that time. I don’t think this kind of content is problematic. But clearly they do, and so making the changes without announcing it feels like it conceals history they regard as problematic (the guy in the article said they told him they were going to but still hadn’t done so, so he brought the changes to our attention himself). Also keep in mind this was just one objection I was critique to the changes

That said, I did acknowledge this is only something that matters to gamers. Then making those changes in that way, won’t affect society at large.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Why make these kinds of assumptions? Prove me wrong. Surprise me for a change. I make these kinds of assumptions because every single time this topic comes up, you say EXACTLY the same things, bring up EXACTLY the same reasons and then refuse to accept any sort of alternative.

A more reasonable assumption based on this, is that I simply have consistent views on this topic. And it isn't a refusal to accept alternatives. I just don't find your arguments persuasive (and it is a topic I have thought about a lot so my views are likely very set unless someone makes a particularly compelling case because I have evaluated all of the arguments). I don't consider your not agreeing with me a 'refusal' to accept alternatives. I assume you have thought about the issues and you simply have landed in a certain position

 

[Hussar]

the reason I find it Orwellian is they are changing the 2014 version if the book in substantive ways, that make it seems they were more enlightened at that time. I don’t think this kind of content is problematic. But clearly they do, and so making the changes without announcing it feels like it conceals history they regard as problematic (the guy in the article said they told him they were going to but still hadn’t done so, so he brought the changes to our attention himself). Also keep in mind this was just one objection I was critique to the changes

That said, I did acknowledge this is only something that matters to gamers. Then making those changes in that way, won’t affect society at large.

I don't care that you "find it Orwellian". You don't get to define words. The fact that you repeat the same word over and over and over again in every single post does not make it true.

A company not announcing that they are editing a book is NOT ORWELLIAN. It just isn't. That's not what Orwellian means. There's no nefarious scheme here. There's no thought policing. There's no attempt to erase history. After all, your books are still right there on your shelf. You can reference them any time you feel like. For it to be Orwellian, they'd actually have to actively start removing those copies so that only the new copies remain.

Like I said, you can scream Orwellian until you're blue in the face. It really doesn't matter.

Of course, the fact that you think that these changes are "substantive" is also another point that is very debatable. Changing the word from one to another while maintaining the meaning is not a substantive change. What word changes in particular do you feel are substantive?

 

[Hussar]

A more reasonable assumption based on this, is that I simply have consistent views on this topic. And it isn't a refusal to accept alternatives. I just don't find your arguments persuasive (and it is a topic I have thought about a lot so my views are likely very set unless someone makes a particularly compelling case because I have evaluated all of the arguments). I don't consider your not agreeing with me a 'refusal' to accept alternatives. I assume you have thought about the issues and you simply have landed in a certain position

Well, I do have to give you that. You certainly have had consistent views. I certainly cannot argue that point.

 

[Bedrockgames]

A company not announcing that they are editing a book is NOT ORWELLIAN. It just isn't. That's not what Orwellian means. There's no nefarious scheme here. There's no thought policing. There's no attempt to erase history. After all, your books are still right there on your shelf. You can reference them any time you feel like. For it to be Orwellian, they'd actually have to actively start removing those copies so that only the new copies remain.

Orwellian is a broad concept Hussar. It need not include all the other elements such as thought policing or a tyrannical government. We use the term Orwellian to describe newsrooms engaging in bad journalism all the time for that reason. Orwellian can include any number of features from Orwells dystopia. Altering historical information is one of those features. And I would argue when you update a book from 2014 without letting people know, you are in effect erasing history.

You don't agree with my usage. Fair enough. I haven't persuaded you, which is fine. But I am using the word in a perfectly acceptable way based on the position I am advocating (but if you don't think them doing this rises to Orwellian, that is fair).

 

[FrogReaver]

Congratulations on being technically correct. Well done you. Excellent job.

I don’t understand why you call that technically correct instead of just correct.

I mean - I was talking about a specific thing. You jump in and tell me no one was doing the thing I was talking about. I prove it and all I get is that I’m technically right for doing so - as if there’s something more important I’m still wrong about? What in the world would that be?