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.

 

[Corinnguard]

You could lean into that further in a worldbuilding sense. Remove Orcs as an always evil race, with orc children always growing up evil.
Instead introduce the concept that you mention above: Orcs are what happens when a being of any intelligent race chooses a path of rage and violence against others.

Orc | Level Up Orcs are not inherently evil but tend to follow their impulses and instincts—which often gets them into trouble. They are passionate and tend to pity the comparatively demure, tame emotions of their neighbors. An orc in love burns with unbridled passion, a terrified orc experiences the primordial horror of the end of days, and an enraged orc can see a minor slight as an insult and challenge to their very being. Any and all of these emotions can get them into trouble, but it’s the rage that’s most remembered.

 

[Umbran]

Check AL at cons

Not if you understand statistics, you don't.

Conventions are most definitely NOT a representative sample of gamers as a whole, statistically speaking. Sorry, they are a self-selected sample not of gamers, but of people who go to cons to play.

and interestingly enough check the demographic analytics of who actually plays d&d, even this version.

How about you present "the demographics" you are using, cite their source, and what you think they indicate?

Because assertion by way of "do your own research" is not a valid way to support a position.

 

[Alzrius]

You could lean into that further in a worldbuilding sense. Remove Orcs as an always evil race, with orc children always growing up evil.
Instead introduce the concept that you mention above: Orcs are what happens when a being of any intelligent race chooses a path of rage and violence against others.

I'm pretty sure that's been the default presentation for decades now.

Does no one remember how, back in 3.X, orcs were listed as being "often chaotic evil," where "often" was defined as "The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40–50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common." The 4E Monster Manual said "A monster’s alignment is not rigid, and exceptions can exist to the general rule." The 5E iteration says "The alignment specified in a monster’s stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster’s alignment to suit the needs of your campaign."

The idea that orcs are an "always evil race" hasn't been supported by the books for a very long time; they've been free-willed creatures choosing the path of rage and violence against others for multiple editions.

 

[AstroCat]

Not if you understand statistics, you don't.

Conventions are most definitely NOT a representative sample of gamers as a whole, statistically speaking. Sorry, they are a self-selected sample not of gamers, but of people who go to cons to play.



How about you present "the demographics" you are using, cite their source, and what you think they indicate?

Because assertion by way of "do your own research" is not a valid way to support a position.

AL attendance at cons was one thing, game player analytics another. You are gonna hate this but the data is not public/free. I'm sorry, and I know that is prob the end for you, but it is, what it is.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

Where I live, we chisel the word savage off of monuments. And I'm proud as hell of that.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

I'm pretty sure that's been the default presentation for decades now.

Does no one remember how, back in 3.X, orcs were listed as being "often chaotic evil," where "often" was defined as "The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40–50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common." The 4E Monster Manual said "A monster’s alignment is not rigid, and exceptions can exist to the general rule." The 5E iteration says "The alignment specified in a monster’s stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster’s alignment to suit the needs of your campaign."

The idea that orcs are an "always evil race" hasn't been supported by the books for a very long time; they've been free-willed creatures choosing the path of rage and violence against others for multiple editions.

Yep it’s the old “make up a guy and get mad at him”.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, D&D at its roots is thematically American Wild West with a thin coat of Medieval European paint.

Like comic book superheroes, D&D is a primarily American art form that aggrandizes American mythic values: great man theory, bootstrappery, peace through superior weaponry and good old fashioned reliance on violence as a problem solver. This infected Old West Dime novels, too, which is why we sometimes think of those things as the same. But Americanism is older than that and continues to this day, and will continue on in perpetuity. Even when we try and expand the subjects of our art, we end up as often as not with Shaft.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Orc | Level Up Orcs are not inherently evil but tend to follow their impulses and instincts—which often gets them into trouble. They are passionate and tend to pity the comparatively demure, tame emotions of their neighbors. An orc in love burns with unbridled passion, a terrified orc experiences the primordial horror of the end of days, and an enraged orc can see a minor slight as an insult and challenge to their very being. Any and all of these emotions can get them into trouble, but it’s the rage that’s most remembered.

That's very Earthdawn. I did like that game.

 

[Fox Lee]

While I'm generally 100% behind these changes, I'm super disappointed to see "fat" on this list. Speaking as somebody who has been fat all her life, it's not using the word that's the problem. It's treating the word as if it's an insult—which is exactly what you do when you replace it with some condescending synonym like "big" :\

We don't need thin people to pretend we aren't fat, we need thin people to acknowledge that being fat isn't some kind of personal failing. If you want to do right by fat people, don't refuse to say "fat"—just make sure that the characters you describe that way include cool/competent/sexy/heroic characters, instead of the endless parade of losers and villains to which we are accustomed.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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.

The Half-Orc Point of View in Dragon magazine, back in the early 1980s, starts with just such a myth, featuring Gruumsh. Next to the kobold vs. gnomes myth and Gruumsh vs. Correlon myth, it's probably the third most prominent canon D&D myth. Well worth hunting down.

Even in the all-evil orcs era, the orcs thought they were right.