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.

 

[occam]

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".

Racist or not, it's still difficult not to find your characterization of those who enjoy current D&D products as offensive. Do all of us here on this board of that persuasion have "the least interesting, challenging or imaginative stance possible"?

 

[Charlaquin]

I do hope the new MM takes the opportunity to switch that up.

I’m pretty sure they’re just going to be fiends in the new MM

 

[Reynard]

Racist or not, it's still difficult not to find your characterization of those who enjoy current D&D products as offensive. Do all of us here on this board of that persuasion have "the least interesting, challenging or imaginative stance possible"?

I'm inherently suspect of any stance that suggests leaning on century old deeply problematic tropes in somehow more creative than, really, any alternative.

 

[Dire Bare]

No, some people definitely do care. I too am angry about how they’ve been handling gnolls in 5e.

I find the gnoll problem to be an interesting one . . . and no, I'm not a fan of how WotC changed gnolls in 5E.

What they were trying to do . . . IMO . . . was what we talked about upthread, create an always evil race, a race of mortal demons. Very similar to what some have suggested for orcs upthread. In 5E, there aren't little demonic gnoll babies being raised by demonic gnoll families . . . but rather gnolls explode out of corrupted hyenas . . . or something, I probably have the details wrong.

But it doesn't work (for some of us, at least), because the fan base is already used to seeing gnolls in a similar position as orcs, goblins, and the other antagonist races of the game. And the game has a history of sometimes humanizing gnolls in the same way it has orcs and goblins. WotC wanted a traditionally evil race to remain traditionally evil, but avoid having them being sentient, always-evil mortals.

Yeah, I'm hoping the demonic gnolls go back closer to their 3E depiction, that some gnoll bands have made the choice to worship Yeenoghu and gain demonic powers and allies as a reward. Leaving other gnolls to make varied choices, alongside all of the other sentient people of the D&D world.

 

[occam]

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

I would like to see objective measures that rate the strength, evocativeness, or effectiveness of the following word choices:

• brutal or merciless or ruthless vs. savage
• barbarian vs. invading
• settled vs. civilized
• "a plane of madness" vs. "a plane of overwhelming chaos"
• villainous or bizaare vs. insane
• crazy vs. foolhardy
• "cosmic horror" vs. "risk of insanity"
• dimwitted vs. incurious
• vile vs. dark

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).

Then I guess you'll be happy(?) that WotC didn't remove slavery from D&D. Take a look at the actual changes: efreet are still enslaving creatures, duergar were still held in captivity for generations, drow still send raiding parties to capture laborers, etc.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I’m pretty sure they’re just going to be fiends in the new MM

I had to reread this three times before I realized you weren't angry about gnolls being friends. I kept thinking, "Isn't this what Charlaquin wants???"

 

[Dire Bare]

I mean, not hard to make a rip-off Dark Sun alike. Question is...will it sell?

It's been done. Dragon Kings.

It's a silver seller on DriveThru, but the game came and went pretty quickly without making much of an impact.

 

[Clint_L]

So, you read an article about WotC making changes to the language they use in their own books, and then extrapolated a scenario where WotC starts forbidding film and television licensees from using the language they have been choosing to avoid. Does that not strike you as alarmist?

That doesn't strike me as an alarmist at all. That would strike me as WotC doing their due diligence. It is their duty to manage their brand representation, and a huge part of that is being cautious in how your brand is represented by business partners. That doesn't mean there isn't room for flexibility, though. You can bet your butt that Greta Gerwig had extensive negotiations with Mattel over her Barbie script, and I am sure that both sides gave a little (Mattel probably gave a lot, actually).

Similarly, I am 100% positive that WotC scrutinizes the language (and other content) in products like the Honour Among Thieves and Baldur's Gate 3. That doesn't mean they catch everything or insist on the exact same standards as in their own books (they manifestly don't - c.f. Baldur's Gate 3, nudity in), but they definitely negotiate.

Again, this is normal stuff, not some sign of the censorship apocalypse. And nothing to do with free speech.

 

[Charlaquin]

I find the gnoll problem to be an interesting one . . . and no, I'm not a fan of how WotC changed gnolls in 5E.

What they were trying to do . . . IMO . . . was what we talked about upthread, create an always evil race, a race of mortal demons. Very similar to what some have suggested for orcs upthread. In 5E, there aren't little demonic gnoll babies being raised by demonic gnoll families . . . but rather gnolls explode out of corrupted hyenas . . . or something, I probably have the details wrong.

That’s at least how it happens in Baldur’s Gate 3.

But it doesn't work (for some of us, at least), because the fan base is already used to seeing gnolls in a similar position as orcs, goblins, and the other antagonist races of the game. And the game has a history of sometimes humanizing gnolls in the same way it has orcs and goblins. WotC wanted a traditionally evil race to remain traditionally evil, but avoid having them being sentient, always-evil mortals.

Yeah, I'm hoping the demonic gnolls go back closer to their 3E depiction, that some gnoll bands have made the choice to worship Yeenoghu and gain demonic powers and allies as a reward. Leaving other gnolls to make varied choices, alongside all of the other sentient people of the D&D world.

Frankly, for me the problem is that they’re anthropomorphic animals. I think animals are cool, and there’s a lot of room to create interesting cultures by interpreting animal behaviors through a human social lens. I’d love to see a gnoll society that resembles a more humanized version of spotted hyena pack structures.

The idea of a “mortal demon” is fine, but give them an original design instead of eating up the conceptual space for an anthropomorphic animal species.

 

[Corinnguard]

What they were trying to do . . . IMO . . . was what we talked about upthread, create an always evil race, a race of mortal demons. Very similar to what some have suggested for orcs upthread. In 5E, there aren't little demonic gnoll babies being raised by demonic gnoll families . . . but rather gnolls explode out of corrupted hyenas . . . or something, I probably have the details wrong.

I saw a YouTube clip of the BG3 game where a Gnoll was 'born' from a corrupted hyena. So it's a thing.

I am starting to appreciate the Gnolls in Level Up better. Gnoll | Level Up