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.

 

[Deset Gled]

Of course, that is not how we speak. But I guess you’ve unwittingly provided an example. Just swap “British” for some other demographic.

For reference:


I suppose the fact that this is from the "Zulu War" segment of The Meaning of Life should somehow be relevant to the current discussion, but I'm not 100% sure what to do with it.

 

[Morrus]

I suppose the fact that this is from the "Zulu War" segment of The Meaning of Life should somehow be relevant to the current discussion, but I'm not 100% sure what to do with it.

I won't go into details about how it's OK for a group to joke about itself, or about how that video is 40 years old, and how it's obviously not how British people speak, because of course 'the British' are not a disadvantaged demographic (although of course many demographics which overlap with being British are). My point was that if you substitute "British" for pretty much anything else there other than Americans, Canadians, or Australians (ie English speaking Western democracies), it then becomes problematic.

 

[occam]

I'm glad all the changes over the last 2-3 years and the new game of wotc neo-5e d&d is awesome for you, enjoy of course, that's legit great. Not all changes are negative, that would be a silly position to take.

I've personally felt the art has taken a severe nose dive, the lore and flavor pretty much eliminated, and the quality of mechanical changes and adventures reached an all time low, but that's just my take of course. I loved the 2013/2014 test and release version of 5e, but now it's just a not a game I find much to get inspired by.

However, the changes being discussed in this thread weren't to lore or mechanics. So what specifically about these changes do you find makes D&D a "watered down, unimaginative, uninspired shell of it's former self"?

 

[AstroCat]

However, the changes being discussed in this thread weren't to lore or mechanics. So what specifically about these changes do you find makes D&D a "watered down, unimaginative, uninspired shell of it's former self"?

Like I said it's death by a trillion cuts... random pick, changing barbarian to hordes... flavor cut. Super minor unto itself but stack that over and over and it adds up. While at it, removing the word savage, bummer... fun word for gaming, now not allowed. So much speak policing, it's just gotten insufferable, you can't even keep up.

And yes this all is just one more thing added to all the others over the last 2-3 years that contribute bit by bit to "watered down, unimaginative, uninspired shell of it's former self". It's just gotten so heavy handed, it's almost a parody at this point.

 

[Parmandur]

It’s worth noting that Tolkien himself was somewhat conflicted about that origin. It was important to him that evil not be able to create anything new, only corrupt the creations of good. But, he also recognized that orcs being the result of Morgoth torturing elves was awfully victim-blame-y (though he obviously wouldn’t have use that language to describe it).

Yeah, if Tolkien himself was bothered at his own depiction of Orcs being problematic (and he wrote a bunch of essays to try and solve the problem for himself, unsuccessfully, which can be read in Morgoth's Ring), certainly anyone else can critique the issue.

 

[Jahydin]

Like the unicorn myth. What do you think they are really talking about when they say that only a virgin can catch and tame this magnificent stallion with a honking big pe… horn?

As soon as we start digging a bit into these myths beyond the surface literal readings, it gets pretty obvious why a lot of this could do with a bit of freshening up.

You know, that thought never crossed my mind...

But then again, most innuendos do woosh right by me...

 

[Morrus]

Actually changing the rules, styles, "flavor" and basically the entire game into some other game almost entirely is not "Including more people in the game", it's changing the whole game to be catered to a different set of people with the least interesting, challenging or imaginative stance possible. The original game of the last 40+ years and what made it interesting is basically gone, and replaced by a sanitized, generic, "reach the masses" version, it's basically the most generic version of a McDonald's hamburger when it used to be Kuma's. So yeah, it's not even in the same world any more.

So, let's unpack this. There's a lot there.

The "different set of people" are those now being represented more in the game--people of colour, people with disabilities, non-binary people, non-straight people, etc.

This "different set of people" differs from the... uhhh... non-different?... set of people by being, I guess, not white, straight, heterosexual men without disabilities.

And including this "different set of people" is "the least interesting, challenging or imaginative stance possible"?

Ergo, the most interesting, challenging, imaginative stance possible is making everything about white, straight, heterosexual men without disabilities.

I mean, if you find that interesting, challenging, and imaginative, more power to you. Personally, I find including lots of different folks to be interesting, challenging, and imaginative. But I guess one operates within one's comfort zones, and I can see how "people not exactly like me" is outside that zone.

I don't get how that makes them not interesting, challenging, or imaginative, though. But I'm not you. Maybe white, straight, heterosexual men without disabilities are the most interesting, challenging, and imaginative thing you can imagine. Everyone's different.

 

[MGibster]

Of course, that is not how we speak. But I guess you’ve unwittingly provided an example. Just swap “British” for some other demographic.

Of course not. You have four accents in Great Britain:

1. Dick Van Dyke from Marry Poppins
2. Scrooge McDuck from Ducktales, The Muppet Christmas Carol, and Scrooge McDuck and Money
3. Shane MacGowen of The Pogues
4. Tom Jones from the dreams of many of our mothers and grandmothers circa 1960-1980 (maybe a few dads and grandpas too)

Well, I'm sorry if I ruffled any feathers. Obviously I don't think all British people talk a certain way. It was a joke and I apologize.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The changes above shouldn’t be treated as the only approach or the final approach. How we address these issues is changing rapidly. I may have described items above imperfectly, though I have made the effort not to do so.

This I think is the most important part. The hardest thing I've seen in this whole concept is admitting and understanding that this is a process of continual learning and understanding. There's no monolithic groups that are blanket concerned about any given language, but a lot of peoples and experiences and the people who want to do right by them and no one has met every single one of them and heard them out. New things are going to come up and that's fine. We just need to adapt.

 

[AstroCat]

So, let's unpack this. There's a lot there.

The "different set of people" are those now being represented more in the game--people of colour, people with disabilities, non-binary people, non-straight people, etc.

This "different set of people" differs from the... uhhh... non-different?... set of people by being, I guess, not white, straight, heterosexual men without disabilities.

And including this "different set of people" is "the least interesting, challenging or imaginative stance possible"?

Ergo, the most interesting, challenging, imaginative stance possible is making everything about white, straight, heterosexual men without disabilities.

I mean, if you find that interesting, challenging, and imaginative, more power to you. Personally, I find including lots of different folks to be interesting, challenging, and imaginative. But I guess one operates within one's comfort zones, and I can see how "people not exactly like me" is outside that zone.

I don't get how that makes them not interesting, challenging, or imaginative, though. But I'm not you. Maybe white, straight, heterosexual men without disabilities are the most interesting, challenging, and imaginative thing you can imagine. Everyone's different.

Taking a risk here, I know you are the "big boss" and can boot at will but I will go for it with best intentions. If you want to try and boil down everything I said into, in my view a disingenuous, and simplistic take of, "white, straight, heterosexual men without disabilities.' must be out of the game, thus everything is terrible, then we are operating on different planes to start.

I know it's super easy and way in fashion to take any change criticism and just assume the all holy position that racism must be at it's root, and I mean just must be somehow the only issue at hand. And how dare the person not 100% fit the very "in thing" of right now.

Seriously, I should have known, but I let my guard down, my bad. I needed to list my 1000 miles long "I'm not taking a racist approach to my criticism" credential report. This is so laborious, but let me be 100% clear, having other people (meaning not "white, straight, heterosexual men without disabilities.') visually and textually in the game of d&d is not a bad thing, it is good, and if done with respect can add a ton of flavor and variety to the game of d&d which is awesome. I 100% believe this and have acted upon it for decades.

Ok, phheewh! I STILL think the current version of wotc neo-5e "d&d" is "it's changing the whole game to be catered to a different set of people with the least interesting, challenging or imaginative stance possible". I think the light hearted McDonalds analogy from above still works, it's silly admittedly.

Example of very recent alt to wotc neo-5e "d&d" I think rocks, ShadowDark, it has tons of what wotc neo-5e is missing even without mounds of content.

Am I kicked?!