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.

 

[ad_hoc]

Very interesting read. There are a few cases where I would probably have taken a different approach, but overall they seem like changes for the better, and it makes sense that a huge publisher like WotC would want to err on the side of caution.

The one change that stood out to me as a bit misguided was removal of a section about how a male cleric would go against the typical gender roles in drow society, which might be a reason for such a drow to leave for the surface. Speaking as someone who is pretty familiar with going against typical gender roles, I think it’s a shame to cut this. I can understand if they want to avoid implying that drow have a monoculture, but I don’t think it’s bad for specific cultures (lolthite drow, for instance) to have strict gender roles that some characters might defy. On the contrary, I think there’s great value in the room that creates for portraying characters escaping persecution based on their relationship with their society’s gender norms. Especially when such societies are depicted as evil. Disappointing, considering the language changes around sex and gender looked excellent otherwise.

Yeah, things can swing the other way into erasure.

It is like trying to get rid of racist language in the books by getting rid of racism in the setting entirely.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

Very much so. So, while I personally am a fan of a lot of moral and ethical complexity in my games and play mainly with mature adults whom I know are prepared for such complexity, I can accept that what works for me at my own table is not the same as what would work best for the publisher of a game marketed for ages 12 and up. So to roll with the unicorn example, while I might be cool with keeping the virgin thing and just acknowledging that unicorns are jerks, I think it would probably be more prudent of WotC to drop the virgin thing and keep unicorns unambiguously good.

 

[Jahydin]

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?

Haha, no idea. Honestly a great person. I think he was just trying his best to roleplay the situation in his head without thinking about the consequences fast enough?

Ended up demanding that everyone put their weapons down and join us or die. Which they did.

I think he might have been irritated that he now had a small band of bandit NPCs he had to consider for the rest of the campaign.

Turned out okay, but man, do I think of that stupid bandit every time another one pops up in games.
I don't want to kill Robin Hood!

 

[Reynard]

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.

That sounds like a serious miscalculation on the part of the GM.

 

[Corinnguard]

At the beginning of my second adventure, my group jokingly called ourselves the Kobold Liberation Front because we began freeing Kobolds who were working for the Cult of the Dragon near Greenest. We would encounter them and just talk to them about their current lot in life. And then we would send them to Elturel to start a new life.

Sometimes the best role-playing you can do in an adventure is doing the unexpected.

 

[Charlaquin]

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."

Although the old World of Darkness games were their own can of racist worms… And I think White Wolf… Onyx Path… White Wolf again… got hit a lot harder by the changing social climate than WotC did.

 

[Scribe]

why suddenly humanize the enemy?

Because, as we are being told in this thread, it is a person. Everyone, everywhere, has a motivation, and about the only excuse that is still even remotely borderline acceptable to some segments is 'a God/Power forced them, or they are mindless, or they are beings of pure distilled evil/constructs'.

Thats the logical end point here.

 

[Reynard]

Because, as we are being told in this thread, it is a person. Everyone, everywhere, has a motivation, and about the only excuse that is still even remotely borderline acceptable to some segments is 'a God/Power forced them, or they are mindless, or they are beings of pure distilled evil/constructs'.

Thats the logical end point here.

The only difference is we are presuming that they chose evil. That doesn't make them not evil.

 

[Scribe]

The only difference is we are presuming that they chose evil. That doesn't make them not evil.

Who the Bandits? I mean sure, some, maybe most, maybe the leaders?

If we are to be burdened with consideration for all the past sins of our fathers in every other capacity, then I dont see why we shouldnt also consider that as the example shows, there are those who are forced into a life of crime by circumstances.

Should they too be put to the sword, or rehabilitated by the just society some of us think we are forming here?

 

[AstroCat]

"wotc d&d", death by a trillion cuts... Thank goodness there are so many absolutely amazing alternatives to wotc's neo-5e "d&d".