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.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Well, yeah, but the same is true of orcs. Yes, we can all make whatever changes we want in our own games. But the default presentation still matters, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place.

Weeeeeell, a large percentage of the people upset are people for whom D&D canon is one of the most important aspects of the game. Any change -- give gnomes and halflings one less digit on each hand and have them wear white gloves all the time, like a cartoon character! -- would deeply upset them. See any recent discussion of the new Spelljammer, Planescape or Dragonlance books.

In this case, the changes overlap with things that concern another group.

I think it's a mistake to conflate the two and I think it's why people are talking past each other. In many cases, they're really focused on two different aspects of the changes, not the same ones.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, yeah, but the same is true of orcs. Yes, we can all make whatever changes we want in our own games. But the default presentation still matters, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place.

To me it's really just something to have an intellectual debate about. It doesn't really affect me in a practical way.

 

[Charlaquin]

Is that a thing? I did not know that.
::googles::
Oh, that is really neat. Right on.

Yeah, there are a lot of animals that display sexual characteristics outside the typical binary, which obviously appeals to trans and queer folks. Also, there’s a lot of overlap between queer and furry communities.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Also, I’m just gonna say it… A lot of trans women identify pretty strongly with spotted hyenas.

ninja'ed!

Ok, I need to know more about that.

I've personally changed Gnolls to be fiends instead of humanoids in my game, but if you are saying I can make a cool and progressive culture based on hyenas with them as humanoids, I'd like to hear it!

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Again there is a very big difference when you are talking minor corrections to the manuscript, versus sneaking in changes to content that alter the meaning. I can certainly see someone saying that in respect to this occurring in RPGs, it is tilting at the wind (as it is one publisher in a hobby that has very little broader cultural significance----though again it is still important to those of us who game). But when it comes to classic works and well known novels being changed in meaningful ways, I think it is far from tilting at the wind. Just look at the reaction to some of the recent changes to Ronald Dahl books. Folks who would normally be on the side of the people advocating the changes saw the issue with doing so and wrote about it. Obviously differences of opinions existed about the changes. That is fair. But I don't see people being concerned about it as tilting in the wind (and for the record not a big fan of Ronald Dahl myself but I understand the concern about the changes).

And yes point taken on earlier printings. The issue those of us have raised about the record though is it isn't immediately clear to people when they buy the PHB that it is revised with changes. If it is noted, that is one thing. But if it isn't, that is another. And again, I think if we are just talking typos, people expect little more than a note that this is the 2nd or 3rd printing. If terms and meaning are altered, a note about that is probably warranted if only to avoid confusion

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.

Again, whether it is digital, or print, unless we are just talking fixing mistakes and typos, I do think it warrants mention, and personally I would be wary of sneaking a change like that in without letting people know. Again I liken it to news sites changing headlines or altering text in an article. There is something deceptive about it that can create a false impression of what they had published before.

 

[Scribe]

I'm just saying it is one of those things where we, as gamers, shrug and do what we want. WotC makes lots of decisions we wouldn't make in their publications. Gnolls in your world are whatever you want gnolls to be. Like, say, gnome-troll hybrids. Why not?

Because having the 'official' stance, of the default monolith support your position, is a nice feather in your cap. Thats why these threads keep happening, and churning over the same worn path.

I absolutely hate 4E Tieflings. Having Wizards back off of that over the life of 5e, increases my joy. Its as simple as things like that.

 

[Charlaquin]

ninja'ed!

Ok, I need to know more about that.

I've personally changed Gnolls to be fiends instead of humanoids in my game, but if you are saying I can make a cool and progressive culture based on hyenas with them as humanoids, I'd like to hear it!

We’re probably getting too far afield of the topic at this point, but I’d be happy to have a discussion about alternative ways to depict gnolls in another thread! I will say, I don’t think the way I like to present gnolls is necessarily all that progressive; in fact, my gnolls kinda took over the whole “extreme matriarchy” shtick from my drow, which WotC appears to be moving away from.

 

[Staffan]

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

Someone did try to make a Dark Sun knockoff two years ago, and got a lot of flack for (a) seeming to revel in the less savory parts of the setting (I believe there was a race that was a Mul knockoff that was described as "perfect slaves") and (b) being obviously Dark Sun with the serial numbers filed off, including having sorcerer-monarchs and such. I believe they got hit with a C&D from Wizards and canceled the kickstarter.

 

[Gradine]

We’re probably getting too far afield of the topic at this point, but I’d be happy to have a discussion about alternative ways to depict gnolls in another thread! I will say, I don’t think the way I like to present gnolls is necessarily all that progressive; in fact, my gnolls kinda took over the whole “extreme matriarchy” shtick from my drow, which WotC appears to be moving away from.

I took would like to subscribe to your newsletter

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I guess after Vecna's event Dark Sun will be rebooted, or WotC will publish a spiritual successor.

I have got my own opinion about what is offensive or politically correct, but others may have got a different point of view, and then here the troubles start. What if I say limits by other are reaching ridiculous levels?

Older fandom would rather to keep "tradition" because you are older a lot of things start to be changed or disappear, and then you want your hobby to be like the old days of glory. How to explain it with other example? If you love reading, then you can buy more books for your library, but you don't want the old titles of your collection to be replaced with the news.

The efforts to be inclusive are going to fail if the publishers forget to create good characters and good stories. And also those efforts are useless, a dead letter, if they forget to promote ethical values as the respect for the human dignity and the good sense. And don't say "we promote tolerance" because some times the respect and tolerance is for one group but not for other.

The points of view are changing. For example the conspirancy theories could influennce into new IPs based in the Victorian age, adding now more secret societies doing horrible things.

D&D gnolls aren't only antropomorphic hyenas, but bloodthirsty humanoids created by a evil deity.

Being sensitive and inclusive in the right way doesn't mean the creation of new taboos without a coherent and clear coherent. We need to know where is the line between offesive or tolerable. Yes my fear is this to become "Orwellanian".

Inclusive should be about adding new options, not about replacing the previous traditional elements.

* If a Spaniards is infiltrated in a Oktoberfest drinking beer... would be it cultural apropiation?