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.

 

[Reef]

No I'm claiming these view points aren't truly representive of marginalized communities as folks make them out to be. If they were Disney wouldn't be the current disaster it's come to be.

I've talked with folks from these communities who don't feel represented by these views.

The fact that you think Disney’s problems are due to inclusive movies, I’m not sure there’s much more to say. Disney’s problems are due to the fact they’ve gotten sloppy and are putting out badly written movies. Not because there are too many women, or diverse casting, or lack of strong, white, manly men.

 

[AstroCat]

This is thevthing I think some people are missing or intentionally ignoring: these choices are about money. Brands that ignore this stuff or outright deride it suffer. I mean,just look at the share values of X. It turns out that most people don't want to be associated with brands that promote conspiracy theories and -isms. Who coulda knowed?

WotC knows its audience. If you feel that this is all nonsense, it probably means you aren't it any more.

There are so many factors here, chasing markets, ignoring your analytics, etc... Companies misjudge their audience all the time, and I mean all the time. I personally "might" not be the soul target, or even a micro fraction of it for wotc, but is that a good thing, time will tell.

 

[AstroCat]

Except it is true. University, management firms, big investors are all in agreement over this. DEI and inclusion are better for business. The evidence is ovewhelming.

Why Diversity and Inclusion Are Good for Business

Fostering a culture of diversity and inclusion is exactly what today's businesses must do to compete on the global stage.

online.uncp.edu

Inclusion In The Workplace: What It Means And Its Strength | NU

There are many benefits to incorporating inclusion into the workplace. Learn why it's important & some tips on how to accomplish it.

www.nu.edu

How diversity, equity, and inclusion are good for business

Diversity in the workplace—with true inclusion—matters to employees, customers, and your long-term business growth.

www.principal.com

12 Reasons Why Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Are Important in Business - Claremont Lincoln

From nurturing a more positive workplace to generating fresh insights, investing in intentional DEI practices is an imperative move for every business.

www.claremontlincoln.edu

Diversity wins: How inclusion matters

Although the business case for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) is stronger than ever, many companies’ progress has stalled. A systematic approach and bold action can help.

www.mckinsey.com

Wizards of the Coast is making attempts to include more people in the game. Inclusion's detractors are demanding less inclusion in the game, closing off the people who for the past years say that the game and tables finally welcomed them.

The best way to grow the game is to write and lead it in a way that says "all are welcome." Not to hold onto the tropes that shout loudly "but not you."

Many of those articles are about diversity in the workplace, that's not the same thing as what wotc is doing. Marketing to an audience is not hiring practices. Can you think of any maybe recent marketing that misfired?

 

[Charlaquin]

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

First of all, no, that’s not how it works. Left-wing authoritarianism and right-wing authoritarianism are both things, but they are not the same thing. Second of all, a publisher deciding not to use certain language is not censorship. WotC also doesn’t print swear words in D&D books, and no one calls that censorship. Because it isn’t.

 

[bedir than]

I could counter point out the Bud Light Boycott, Miller Light or the Gellette Boycott

Only one of the three you list has a lower value today than it did prior to the boycott.
Your evidence that inclusion is harmful is a single brand, that was replaced by a much more inclusive brand -- one that doesn't center straight white men

 

[bedir than]

Many of those articles are about diversity in the workplace, that's not the same thing as what wotc is doing. Marketing to an audience is not hiring practices. Can you think of any maybe recent marketing that misfired?

As you replied within two minutes of me posting I don't think you bothered to read the thorough studies that disagree with your charactiture of their stance.

 

[billd91]

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.

There is a generational shift going on but I think part of it is based on how that all went for those of us Gen X (or earlier). As we batted around these controversies to learn and form our own opinions, people started speaking up that “our learning” was, in part, based on perpetuation of “their pain”. And the Millennials and Zoomers cottoned on to that, bless them. As a Gen X parent of Zoomer kids, I am very much proud of them for that.

 

[AstroCat]

Only one of the three you list has a lower value today than it did prior to the boycott.
Your evidence that inclusion is harmful is a single brand, that was replaced by a much more inclusive brand -- one that doesn't center straight white men

Some marketing campaigns succeed, others fail. Corporate product directions the same, some times they over reach, some times under. There are examples of all of it. We'll see how wotc does moving forward, many believe they have had several missteps over the last few years, despite all their "experts".

 

[AstroCat]

As you replied within two minutes of me posting I don't think you bothered to read the thorough studies that disagree with your charactiture of their stance.

You want to include the audience your product is designed for, yes you can grow it, but not every product is made for every person. Knowing and reading your audience is important, wotc seems to have a mixed track record at this point of reading their audience.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Liberalism vs Conservatism in a nutshell there. Just, with regard to publishing policy rather than government policy.