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.

 

[Alzrius]

The Half-Orc Point of View in Dragon magazine, back in the early 1980s, starts with just such a myth, featuring Gruumsh.

It's from issue #62, which I picked up this last Gen Con and ironically enough was reading earlier today. I'll note that it also includes the following tidbit:

A minor cult has been noted, representing the only known orcish religion that doesn’t emphasize violence or warfare. Probably less than a hundred orcs belong to this sect, and most sages doubt that the being they worship is even a true god. It appears to have been started when a orc discovered an ancient picture of a female orc, reputedly the most beautiful of her race ever known. This orc and his followers worship the picture and bring it sacrifices of flowers, jewels, and candies. Only time will tell whether they worship a true goddess or just a picture; whether they shall fade away with time, or whether the orcs will someday all follow the ways of the mysterious goddess known as “Mispigie.”

 

[Jahydin]

@Corinnguard @Alzrius @QuentinGeorge
Maybe you missed the unique portion of @Cap'n Kobold 's post?:

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.

That does differ from what's been done before.

 

[SteveC]

This is ... interesting, I guess that's the way I'll phrase my reaction to it. As an English major and sometimes writer, I don't support any of this. A few months ago there were discussions of similar edits to popular children's novels, and I absolutely had the same reaction.

But that's not to say that WotC can't make these changes, of course they can. What's more, in a new edition of the rules who's to say anyone would even notice it? Aside from the fact that some of the changes will likely result in pretty tortured writing and sentences.

I guess it was an easy way to tell me I didn't need new books without directly telling me. Is that an overreaction? Probably. And if you're someone who was offended by any of these terms, I'm certainly not saying I want you to be offended, far from it. It will be interesting to see where we go from here, since I'm sure this is only the beginning of this story. Time to take a step away, methinks. Feel free to ignore this as ramblings of that English major from the 90s.

 

[Alzrius]

@Corinnguard @Alzrius @QuentinGeorge
Maybe you missed the unique portion of @Cap'n Kobold 's post?:


That does differ from what's been done before.

To be clear, you're talking about the idea that other races literally metamorphose into orcs when they get too angry/violent for too long?

That's certainly a change from having them be their own race, but leaving aside the inevitable "hulking out" memes, it's not that much different than how Paizo had elves spontaneously turning into drow when they went bad.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Kinda/sorta?

Sure, the Monster Manual has had this sort of verbiage, but, then, virtually every single source book then goes ahead and presents orcs as always evil bad guys same as always. Heck, even the goblins at the beginning of Phandelver are presented as bog standard, always evil goblins who are in need of killin'. There's nothing in the adventure to suggest that you could simply talk your way through the goblin hideout and retrieve the hostage. Not that you can't do that, of course. But, the adventure certainly does nothing to help a DM or a group who tries to deal with the situation through diplomacy. The whole thing is set up as a pretty bog standard orc and pie scenario.

Simply adding in something like "often" while doing nothing to change anything else doesn't really address the issue.

 

[Morrus]

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.

Ah, OK, now I get it. I couldn’t work out why you were so upset. You’ve confused WotC with some kind of international law enforcement organisation which monitors and controls your speech.

No, when WotC uses or doesn’t use certain language, they are not saying that you are legally obligated to use or not to use those words.

In the same vein, I have chosen not to use fennel in my favourite sausage pasta dish. However, let me assure you that that does not mean that it is now illegal for you to use fennel. I am not an international spice police organisation

Hope that helps! WotC is just a game publisher using the words it wants to use. Use whatever words you want.

The word ‘savage’ is in no way, as you confusedly claim, “not allowed”, and WotC has no police who will stop you from using it.

 

[Corinnguard]

@Corinnguard @Alzrius @QuentinGeorge
Maybe you missed the unique portion of @Cap'n Kobold 's post?:


That does differ from what's been done before.

I saw it, and it reminded me of how Orcs are presented in Level Up. If the only Orc you ever see is an Orc caught up in the passion of rage, then you might make the mistake that all Orcs are like this.

 

[Hussar]

Oooh. I missed that too. I LOVE the idea of orcs being a sort of magical "curse" for humanoids that have descended into anger and rage.

Although... thinking about the visuals... that actually might be an easy thing to misconstrue.

The "civilized" group loses control, descends into barbarity and rage and becomes an orc. Thinking about that... that might get icky in a serious hurry.

 

[Blue Orange]

This is ... interesting, I guess that's the way I'll phrase my reaction to it. As an English major and sometimes writer, I don't support any of this. A few months ago there were discussions of similar edits to popular children's novels, and I absolutely had the same reaction.

But that's not to say that WotC can't make these changes, of course they can. What's more, in a new edition of the rules who's to say anyone would even notice it? Aside from the fact that some of the changes will likely result in pretty tortured writing and sentences.

I guess it was an easy way to tell me I didn't need new books without telling me this. Is that an overreaction? Probably. And if you're someone who was offended by any of these terms, I'm certainly not saying I want you to be offended, far from it. It will be interesting to see where we go from here, since I'm sure this is only the beginning of this story. Time to take a step away, methinks. Feel free to ignore this as ramblings of that English major from the 90s.

It's a generational thing, I think. The older generation of liberals and leftists (Gen X and older, or roughly born post-1980) placed more value on truth (don't put words in people's mouths), and exposing people to controversial views so they could form their own opinions. The younger generation (Millennials and Gen Z, or roughly born post-1980) places more value on making everyone feel included, and is more tolerant of suppressing speech that might cause harm. This is more similar to the speech norms in Europe.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Yeah, probably. What WotC wants and what I want have largely parted ways.