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]

I understand this point of view, but would push back on it a bit. I do think there is a big difference between these changes to the 2014 books and if they were to make those changes to the new edition (again I would still find the changes to be bad from a quality standpoint, but I wouldn't find them Orwellian). I don't think the 5E books are living documents. I understand that WOTC probably sees them as such, and I understand there may be things that have to be updated out of necessity (a glaring typo or a serious error that makes running the game impossible). But I feel like this attitude of everything being a living document because we live in the digital age, to be itself a problem. Now maybe it is fairly minor when talking about an RPG (the impact of an RPG on the culture is fairly negligible). But it is part of a larger issue that is more obvious when you see it applied to news websites and other formats (here I think it is seriously a problem because you are literally changing the news, and this happens all the time: the appropriate way to handle errors in news articles is through clear corrections that don't conceal that the original error occurred). I also don't think it is like monopoly because that is a board game. We are talking about three large books with a lot of text. When you start slipping in changes to a book printed in 2014, you are altering the historical record because one of the things people use those books to do is discuss changes to editions over time (including changes around sensitivity). It makes it look like WOTC was more 'enlightened' in 2014 than it really was.

I see your point, but you're tilting at the wind. Practically every publisher makes changes from one printing to another, whether it's "literature" such as novels, or comic books, but especially game books. WotC does it, Paizo does it, Kobold Press does it, and on and on. But it's not like earlier printings cease to exist, if one is seriously concerned with the historical record.

And for as long as WotC has had official digital versions of its books, in D&D Beyond and in D&D Insider (in the 4e era), the digital version has always been updated to match the current printing.

 

[Irlo]

Sometimes — maybe even oftentimes — writers and publishers fall back on tropes and “evocative” language common to the genre without much if any reflection. Making some effort to dig into those choices and to hear other perspectives about them and to be a little self-critical can show that what we intend to evoke is not in actuality what we do evoke through our writing. That’s when it’s more creative and more challenging to change it. Let’s say what we mean to say, without dragging all the unspoken, unexamined, and sometimes hurtful baggage into the game.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

And that more than any content might indicate whybWotC isn't rushing to do Dark Sun.

 

[Charlaquin]

Also, we already had flinds as the fiendish equivalent of gnolls. Let them be the ones born from corrupted hyenas and let gnolls be a natural humanoid species.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Also, we already had flinds as the fiendish equivalent of gnolls. Let them be the ones born from corrupted hyenas and let gnolls be a natural humanoid species.

I remember a Dragon magazine letter asking how Flinds are pronounced, and the answer was "like the word wind."

 

[Reynard]

Does it really matter what WotC says gnolls are like?

 

[Charlaquin]

I remember a Dragon magazine letter asking how Flinds are pronounced, and the answer was "like the word wind."

The fact that they said “like” instead of “rhymes with” just makes me giggle at the idea that it’s actually supposed to be pronounced with the w sound at the beginning

 

[Charlaquin]

Does it really matter what WotC says gnolls are like?

I don’t think it matters any less that what they say orcs are like…

 

[Scribe]

Does it really matter what WotC says gnolls are like?

As much or as little as everything else that is setting off this thread.

 

[Umbran]

Are we going to cancel the 1953 Looney Tunes cartoon "Bully for Bugs" because this is about bullfighting?

There are 11 Loony Toons and Merrie Melody cartoons (referred to as the "Censored 11") that have not been distributed for viewing since 1968. And on others with somewhat offensive content, they are presented with a preceding warning.

Even the Muppet Show has occasional warnings on some of their episodes, due to insensitive depictions.

We are free citizens. We shouldn't obey new rules without a right explanation about because these are just and necessary.

Morrus already made a post about this - WotC is not saying anything about what you choose to do. They are making a choice of what they present in their own works. You still get to do what you want to do.

We live in countries with tens and hundreds of millions of other human beings, on a planet of something like 8 billion. In order to get along, we need to be considerate of one another. We cannot expect to have the benefits of this large society without also making some concessions to its operation.

As an example - If I recall correctly you have raised concerns at the historical depiction of Spanish people. You'd really like it if folks listened to your concerns, and adjusted how they speak about the Spanish accordingly, right? If you want that consideration, you should also offer that same consideration to others.

It really is just the Golden Rule - treat others the way you wish to be treated.