D&D 5E What happened to the Hermaphrodites???

[jgsugden]

Someone in a suit likely tied a hand.

 

[Dualazi]

This seems like the epitome of making mountains of of molehills. It doesn't matter if it's included either way, as I don't think it affected the game's "inclusivity" either way. As one poster pointed out, unless your players comb through the PHB back to front they're unlikely to have noticed it in the original print anyway, and I suspect most campaigns didn't otherwise clarify what's in a deity's pants if the players themselves hadn't done research out of character.

Oddly enough though, this discussion itself (and those like it elsewhere) might be reason enough to remove it. It's becoming increasingly clear that there's a vocal minority dead set on creating controversy at the slightest hint of language they don't approve of, and it's smarter for WotC to simply avoid including such things at all rather than do so and invite negative attention. I'm staunchly opposed to this course of action myself, but obviously a public company will probably try and err on the safe side of things.

 

[Ganymede81]

If people are offended by words they don't understand the meaning of, that's not WoTC problem.

I get that.

Hermaphrodite as applied to the intersex community is reductionist and inaccurate. Hermaphrodite as applied to the god of the elves fits fairly well.

On the other hand, while the term does not have the well-developed pejorative malus of a word like "tranny," it is still used and misused. This is probably WOTC exercising an abundance of caution since the purpose of the passage was to express inclusiveness of gender-nonconforming and intersex people and a description of those born in the image of a hermaphroditic god probably isn't the best way to do that.

It doesn't matter if it's included either way, as I don't think it affected the game's "inclusivity" either way...It's becoming increasingly clear that there's a vocal minority dead set on creating controversy at the slightest hint of language they don't approve of, and it's smarter for WotC to simply avoid including such things at all rather than do so and invite negative attention. I'm staunchly opposed to this course of action myself.

You're staunchly opposed to taking one of two equally-meaningless options because that option avoids negative attention?
That's incoherent. How can a choice that, in your own words, doesn't matter inspire such staunch opposition?

 

[SmokeyCriminal]

To be fair, at a glance, Intersex looks like a portmanteau for Internet Sex. js

 

[Lwaxy]

Oh my another case of political incorrectness. We'll keep the term hermaphrodite at our table, thank you very much Wizards. I think the only intersex player I know would be very much offended if we called Corellon intersex.

I find it slightly amusing how something not at all related to RL gets changed because it might offend someone.

 

[Derren]

If people are offended by words they don't understand the meaning of, that's not WoTC problem.

It is when said people start internet shitstorm.

 

[Morrus]

It is when said people start internet shitstorm.

Watch the language, please.

 

[Dualazi]

You're staunchly opposed to taking one of two equally-meaningless options because that option avoids negative attention?
That's incoherent. How can a choice that, in your own words, doesn't matter inspire such staunch opposition?

I'm opposed to it because I strongly dislike censorship, self inflicted or otherwise, and that's what I perceive it to be. If the other posters here are to be believed, Corellon's malleable traits have been in the game since first edition, which is one reason why the game wasn't any more or less inclusive for it being printed. Thus I can only assume its removal was due to Wizards being concerned about the word-police, and I am against this without regard to whether or not it has a large effect on the demographics of the game or the presentation of the game as a whole. As you yourself point out, hermaphrodite might actually be a more accurate term for Corellon, so if they shy away from using it due to potential controversy then they're doing D&D a disservice.

However, as I said earlier I doubt Wizards shares my fervor for artistic integrity and one of the higher ups probably made a call to pull it rather than court unwanted attention. Whether or not the change was meaningful or not isn't important to my opposition so much as the reasoning for the change. Does that make sense?

 

[jaelis]

I'm opposed to it because I strongly dislike censorship, self inflicted or otherwise,

Self-inflicted censorship?

Does that make sense?

Not really.

It sounds to me like you are trying to impose your own vision of artistic integrity on the Wizards developers. But they are the artists here. If they get to do what they want then there is no grounds for complaint.

The fact that the initial editions used hermaphrodite caused no huge public outcry or campaign. A few people mentioned that the term is now considered derogatory. I don't believe anyone forced the company to change its language, on the contrary I think they were eager to do so when they were informed of the situation.

 

[S'mon]

Self-inflicted censorship?

Not really.

It sounds to me like you are trying to impose your own vision of artistic integrity on the Wizards developers. But they are the artists here. If they get to do what they want then there is no grounds for complaint.

The fact that the initial editions used hermaphrodite caused no huge public outcry or campaign. A few people mentioned that the term is now considered derogatory. I don't believe anyone forced the company to change its language, on the contrary I think they were eager to do so when they were informed of the situation.

He is not called hermaphrodite in 1e D&DG. He can be male female both or neither as it pleases him/her/it.