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.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Some of these make sense. And then the other half of it is just dumb.

Oops, should I even use the word "dumb" to describe it? /sarcasm

Progressiveness is fine, but you can go so far left you end up going right. Censorship isn't a solution.

Censorship is controlling how others communicate. In no way is Wizards of the Coast policing your own language.

Where is this whole censorship thing coming from? Is it because of the perceived cultural reasons WotC is changing what language they use?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I am uncomfortable with the idea of a publisher changing the content of their own previously published works, which in this case have been out in the world for nearly a decade. What they are changing it to has nothing to do with that discomfort. The word "uncomfortable" is not inherently political or social in this context. The issue is with changing the past, not how they move on in the future.

But they aren't changing the past. All of us who own the older 5E14 books will still have everything written exactly as it always has been. Our past hasn't changed. Our books are exactly as we bought them 9 years ago. The only change is for NEW people in our future to have a slightly different book than we do. Which means we will now be forced to discuss this situation in our future with any of those people when we say "We're doing X because that's how it was originally written" and they respond with "I don't like that old way, let's use our new way." And thus... we might just have to figure out and work out what really matters to us.

This is no different than any time a complete edition change of D&D occurred. Old D&D player says we're using X... the potential new players coming in are buying newer editions that say Y... and us as the owner of the old edition has to make the uncomfortable decision of what's more important to us-- playing X because it makes us more comfortable, or wanting to play with those new people and thus have to play Y and be uncomfortable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Do you feel this same reaction if they incorporate errata into reprintings of the 2014 books?

Define errata. Actual mistakes and typographical errors, or content changes? Not a fan of the latter.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Some of these make sense. And then the other half of it is just dumb.

Oops, should I even use the word "dumb" to describe it? /sarcasm

Progressiveness is fine, but you can go so far left you end up going right. Censorship isn't a solution.

You're using "censorship" wrong.

Kinda hard for us to take your complaint seriously if you aren't even using the words correctly.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Do you feel this same reaction if they incorporate errata into reprintings of the 2014 books?

somewhat. I think it is something to do with caution. I hope in that case they at least indicate its s new printing snd nite revisions to errors have been changed. Fixing typos and errors is different from changing language and terms (especially if it can give the impression that a book written in 2014 was free of things people might object to in 2023. Again, it changes the record. It isn’t good for people who object to the language or the people who don’t (it creates confusion if you are trying to address and write about the history if how these things are handled from edition to edition). The sane things has been happening with noveks that get reprinted and people get upset, not necessarily becsuse they agree with the old language but because it feeks like history is being edited in a somewhat devious way. Like I said, there is something a bit Orwellian about it

 

[Micah Sweet]

Censorship is controlling how others communicate. In no way is Wizards of the Coast policing your own language.

Where is this whole censorship thing coming from? Is it because of the perceived cultural reasons WotC is changing what language they use?

I think it's because of the massive influence anything WotC does has on the entire industry. It can be perceived as a sort of "soft" censorship.

 

[Reynard]

This is my issue as well. Retroactive changes to existing works make me uncomfortable.

Why?

I have a novel I wrote in 2018 that has been available on Kindle since that time. I included some elements that while intended to be progressive and inclusive, are kind of clumsy by today's standards (one can learn a lot in 5 years). Am I not allowed to go back and make changes to it in order to better achieve my initial aims? Should that book remain forever in its initial state no matter how much better it might be if it goes through a "retroactive" cultural sensitivity editorial pass?

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think it's because of the massive influence anything WotC does has on the entire industry. It can be perceived as a sort of "soft" censorship.

Then that's on those people and their whacked perception. Nothing the rest of us need give two craps about.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But they aren't changing the past. All of us who own the older 5E14 books will still have everything written exactly as it always has been. Our past hasn't changed. Our books are exactly as we bought them 9 years ago. The only change is for NEW people in our future to have a slightly different book than we do. Which means we will now be forced to discuss this situation in our future with any of those people when we say "We're doing X because that's how it was originally written" and they respond with "I don't like that old way, let's use our new way." And thus... we might just have to figure out and work out what really matters to us.

This is no different than any time a complete edition change of D&D occurred. Old D&D player says we're using X... the potential new players coming in are buying newer editions that say Y... and us as the owner of the old edition has to make the uncomfortable decision of what's more important to us-- playing X because it makes us more comfortable, or wanting to play with those new people and thus have to play Y and be uncomfortable.

I see a complete edition change as a different beast. If they were just making these changes to their upcoming new core books (and to the versions of same in D&DB) that would be fine.

For the record, I'm not on board with their changes to Volo's and Mordenkainen's texts either. They wrote a new book for that content. Let that stand on its own and stop selling the old ones if you want. You don't need to change the old books as well.

 

[AstroCat]

Then I'm sorry, I literally can't understand you. When you say "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 then say you didn't say it, I'm just kind of at a loss.

I 100% said that for sure. A simple explanation lost in translation, what I meant was wotc removing the word savage and other words, like fat, madness, etc... from their content is a bummer and it's hard to keep up with all the rapid similar changes they are doing to the game. I believe they are useful and legitimate words to use at times when writing about gaming fantasy worlds. I and maybe just me, will find their book's less interesting with all the changes they are making to their content. It's not that I can't use the words myself, it's that they choose not to, and thus making their written text less interesting and imaginative to me with so many self imposed restrictions on their own creative work.

It is their right to do so 100% while at the same time I can find many of their art, mechanical and content changes unappealing over time, not a single one is a catastrophe unto itself, but the accumulation of so many changes I don't enjoy over such a short period of time has become really unappealing to me.

I hope this helps, and I still think it's a bummer, I loved d&d and the hobby since I was a kid in the late 70s, as many have and now I just don't find the "main game" in it's current form appealing any more, which is sad for me. But on the flip side there are many more ShadowDark, DCC's and even 2014 5e (but I guess the changes are going to be retrospective so kind of), out there for our friends and family, including the new kids to be introduced to the hobby to enjoy.

So we can keep the flavor we like going in our games while still supporting the general hobby. For example, my son and my buddy's daughter played an old school AD&D game with Stefan Pokorny at Gamehole and they loved it, this was awesome to see! Although we probably wouldn't play AD&D with them very often, that downward AC just messes them up, and I don't blame them!