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.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think this conversation is interesting because there seem to be two major perspectives. Please note I'm trying my best to make this observations without judgment, but in the hope that it'll help the discussion.

One perspective is that inclusion is a priority, and so changes towards inclusion are good (however you want to define that term). For this perspective, it is acceptable to change traditions in order to be inclusive towards a broader variety of people.

One perspective is that tradition is a priority, and so changes away from tradition are bad (however you want to define that term). For this perspective, though inclusion may also be a high priority, it does not automatically make changes to tradition acceptable or desired.

...

My perspective aligns with the first, personally. But I think discussions like the unicorn, orcs, or even the language we use really does show that folks are coming to this conversation with different perspectives. And WotC's choices may make some people feel like their own perspective is being challenged, or priorities are being threatened. That doesn't mean anyone needs to cater to others' perspectives, but it could help if we recognize that people have different priorities when it comes to inclusion and tradition.

I would say tradition isn’t my priority. For me it comes down to a few issues. The first is the Orwellian nature of changing books written in 2014 (I dislike it when novels are so changed and when news sites edit articles rather than insert a correction in brackets). It creates a sense of there being no real record of the past and it can be used in deceptive ways

My second issue with the changes to the game going forward is more about sterilization language than tradition. They are replacing strong, evocative language, with less effective language that waters down the game (I think more out of an over abundance of caution around causing offense than any reasonable concern about causing offense

The third is more cultural. I just think we have been making art, games, movies, etc s lot less interesting and compelling, and much more pablum, because we don’t trust audiences to work through nuance, and write to the lowest common denominator over concerns that people will misunderstand intent (I.s. We take slavery out of a setting, because they don’t think people can be trusted to understand that inclusion of that as a setting element, isn’t an endorsement of it).

 

[Blue Orange]

I think this conversation is interesting because there seem to be two major perspectives. Please note I'm trying my best to make this observations without judgment, but in the hope that it'll help the discussion.

One perspective is that inclusion is a priority, and so changes towards inclusion are good (however you want to define that term). For this perspective, it is acceptable to change traditions in order to be inclusive towards a broader variety of people.

One perspective is that tradition is a priority, and so changes away from tradition are bad (however you want to define that term). For this perspective, though inclusion may also be a high priority, it does not automatically make changes to tradition acceptable or desired.

...

My perspective aligns with the first, personally. But I think discussions like the unicorn, orcs, or even the language we use really does show that folks are coming to this conversation with different perspectives. And WotC's choices may make some people feel like their own perspective is being challenged, or priorities are being threatened. That doesn't mean anyone needs to cater to others' perspectives, but it could help if we recognize that people have different priorities when it comes to inclusion and tradition.

Hey, I'm on the other side usually and I think you did a good job! I tried to do the same thing a few posts back.

The only thing I'd add is it's not just about tradition (though that definitely is part of it); there's a feeling that rewriting the text, particularly with a digital text that can be updated (often against the wishes of the user!), has the possibility to rewrite history in ways that can go bad. (Do you always expect to be in control of the censorship machinery?)

This is more relevant with literature (which is supposed to be an expression of the author) than with a game that can be played any way the players want, IMHO, and I'm not expecting Hasbro to defer to my sensibilities when it would cost them money. After all, you can always make a new version that goes back--that's what the OSR was, albeit for different reasons, and enough people liked it it wound up influencing 5e's technical aspects.

 

[Reef]

Tradition is all well and good. But it is a lousy reason not to make changes. Too many people throughout history have attempted to hold onto horrible things in the name of tradition.

Women can't vote! It's against Tradition! Of course those people aren't allowed to eat in the same diner! Tradition! Etc, ad nauseum.

As for preserving history, D&D isn't a historical document. It is a living game. And as a living game, it will change and evolve over time. It has to, in order to remain a living game. No one is going back and rewriting old editions, they are as they were. They're updating the current edition.

 

[BookTenTiger]

he is uncomfortable with it because it seems like they are censoring the historical record, not because the changes force him to examine himself. Just look up esssts and articles on recent changes to old novels. A lot of people are uncomfortable with such changes, not because they endorse the old language, but because they find it Orwellian to update creative works in this way. It is five if you disagree that is Orwellian (people are going to disagree on this) but I think it is unfair to characterize his discomfort with it the way you did

I think this is an interesting point, even if I disagree with it. I see WotC's changes in language, and the attempts to change the language of classic literature, as two adjacent but different phenomena.

In terms of WotC, the fact that they are the current publishers of a game (not a piece of literature) makes a big difference to me. They are already actively making changes (such as errata, or updated rules in Tasha's and Xanathar's), and so it seems that they view 5e as more of a "living document" than an established "historical record" (as you put it). Then again, they are only willing to make so many changes (such as their unwillingness to publish a new Ranger class) without creating a new edition / updated version (the 2024 version). To me, this is analogous to a publisher of a board game updating the language or iconography due to cultural changes. Monopoly changed some of its game pieces in the last ten years; though traditionalists may have been upset, I don't see it as a change to the "historical record" because Hasbro literally can't go back and change Monopoly games published before the shift. If WotC changes the language it uses in upcoming publishings, I really do see that as their right as the people actively creating this version of the game.

Now if WotC said they were publishing the original text of, say, AD&D, but changed a bunch of language without being upfront about it, I think that would make me uncomfortable. And that may be because they are not the current "caretakers" of AD&D, and those authors don't have agency in the change.

When it comes to changing the language of classic literature, I'm 100% against it... unless the author is currently living and wants those changes. Books like the Secret Garden should have forwards in order to explain some of the ways that perspectives have changed on race and class, but they shouldn't change the language. This, to me, would be analogous to changing the "historic record."

On the other hand, to play Devil's Advocate, the classic Agatha Christie novel "And Then There Were None" was originally named after a minstrel song with a terrible slur in it (look it up on Wikipedia if you're curious). When it was published in the US in 1940, the name was changed, and the rhyme in the book used as a major plot point was changed to "Ten Little Indians." Without this change, I would not have been able to read this book when I was younger. One could argue that some changes are necessary to keep art alive and accessible. But then again, I wouldn't want to see such changes made to language in another classic work like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

It's a thorny issue! But my instinct is that WotC's language changes have more to do with keeping their work accessible and inclusive, rather than trying to change any historical record.

 

[Blue Orange]

As for preserving history, D&D isn't a historical document. It is a living game. And as a living game, it will change and evolve over time. It has to, in order to remain a living game. No one is going back and rewriting old editions, they are as they were. They're updating the current edition.

Right. If they were suppressing old editions (as indeed TSR tried to do for a while), that would be another story. But you can go back and see the sorts of things they change over time. Not just cultural stuff, either; HP for monsters has risen and fallen over the years.

 

[bedir than]

I really don't see the issue here. We have written proof in print hiw it was 2014 and now there is another printing with dates and so on. And with updated wording. This is how every other book works too. Some errata here and there. Some modernization of words. It is not a new idea of WotC.

Not only is it not new for WotC. It's not new for genre.
Different printings if Tolkien's works have different phrases, not just typo corrections.
You can even get fully annotated versions where he explains those changes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

About changing already published works. Tolkien famously made extensive changes to Hobbit over a decade after it was first published.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

View attachment 329592​

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.

Tradition is all well and good. But it is a lousy reason not to make changes. Too many people throughout history have attempted to hold onto horrible things in the name of tradition.

Women can't vote! It's against Tradition! Of course those people aren't allowed to eat in the same diner! Tradition! Etc, ad nauseum.

As for preserving history, D&D isn't a historical document. It is a living game. And as a living game, it will change and evolve over time. It has to, in order to remain a living game. No one is going back and rewriting old editions, they are as they were. They're updating the current edition.

Agreed with the idea that bad traditions should replaced, but the question is can WotC tell the difference between removing genuinely bad traditions and removing things based on a handful of people on twitter find upsetting?

 

[bedir than]

Agreed with the idea that bad traditions should replaced, but the question is can WotC tell the difference between removing genuinely bad traditions and removing things based on a handful of people on twitter find upsetting?

They hired professionals.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Agreed with the idea that bad traditions should replaced, but the question is can WotC tell the difference between removing genuinely bad traditions and removing things based on a handful of people on twitter find upsetting?

When you say things like this, you are inventing a fake group of people in order to paint people of a similar perspective as extremists. It's really disingenuous and I feel like it takes away from the conversation instead of adding to it.

Do you really, truly believe WotC makes changes due to a "handful of people on Twitter?"