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.

 

[Morrus]

I think commenting isn't censoring, nor is it telling people what to write. I do agree it can become that (if we were to call for a boycott campaign or try to cancel posters who didn't agree with us on social media, then we'd be getting into that realm). But I think it is fair for people to comment on changes like this occurring in the biggest RPG in the industry.

That’s fine until people start claiming they’re being censored or being told what to say or are subject to imaginary rules or start throwing words like ‘speech police’ around. At that point they aren’t fans simply commenting on products, they’re activists enacting an agenda of suppression. At that point they’ve crossed that line and waived their claims to innocent fan commentary.

Say you don’t like it until the cows come home. That’s fine. Start inventing WotC’s magical thought police and other ridiculous things, then expect serious pushback.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would say that wearing a piece of clothing or costume meant to portray someone else's culture in a mocking or cartoonist way is definitely demeaning.

I didn't see it as mocking or cartoonist. But if that's the prevailing opinion, then yeah, I'd ask him to take it off.

 

[Azzy]

Ah, the mole hills are being made into mountains again.

As a white, straight dude I'm just not seeing the problem with WotC doing this. Most of the arguments against it are sadly comical (at best).

 

[Corinnguard]

You are suggesting that these things are different in scale but not kind and I would say that it is on its face difference in kind. One involves a state actor and involves an educational history text. The other involves a private corporation and an entertainment text. "Orwellian" cannot apply to the latter because its very definition requires both a state actor and rewriting history education.

besides all that, WotC is not pretending these things never happened (also required for Orwellian) -- it is just deciding to do better. If it was truly Orwellian, we wouldn't be talking about it because we would not even know.

And WoTC wanted everyone in the D&D community to know what they were planning to do. They didn't have to do it. They could have made the changes, and no one would have been the wiser. They got us to talking about it. 25 pages and counting....

 

[Micah Sweet]

You have a tendency to assign motives to WotC when you have no way of knowing what those motives are. You keep doing it over and over again in many, many threads. It’s your thing. It’s what you are known for.

In this case “assuming someone will
be offended by it”.

It really is literally inconceivable to you that somebody might believe differently to you, and be acting the way they feel is right, isn’t it? There has to be an ulterior motive, because a honest viewpoint different to yours simply isn’t possible. They must be kowtowing to Twitter or something. They can’t possibly believe what they say they do.

Of course we’ve been here a hundred times before. There’s no changing your mind about that.

They're a giant company. I assume they base their decisions of what they think will make them the most money. Several people here have said the same, to me, in many threads.

 

[AstroCat]

I think a lot of people will will (and have!) take exception to the idea that making content with a diverse and inclusive audience in mind is (a) inherently less creative, or (b) even remotely risky. In both cases I would argue that it's exactly the opposite, though for the first I don't have to as @Irlo already put it better than I ever could:


In the second case, well, let's think about. You've said that the audience who are actually upset with terms like "savage" or "dim-witted" is pretty small. I'd be willing to grant that (though I will say that objections to other things like slavery and madness have been long-standing and widespread). Think, then, about the sort of people who would object to those changes. There's a whole, -cough- RPG Site and forum full of folks who would throw around terms like "wokescolds" in reaction to changes like these. If, as has been asserted, there are more people who hate these changes than have been demanding them (as opposed to those who who are fine with, or appreciate them; something I'm not willing to dismiss by the way!), then how is actually going through those changes, presumably just because they think it's the right thing to do, not risky? On the other hand, how is writing the same old problematic tropes that appeal to the same old audiences that have always been catered to in the past... how is that riskier? How is it risky at all?

I think for sure wotc has backed themselves into a small corner, but they want to be there. The content they can explore is much more limited than just word swapping in my view. The caution and hesitation for risk of offending "someone" out there, is very evident, and in my opinion is leading to inferior and uninspiring products beyond just my personal taste. Sure some of it is style of content preference, written and art. I just don't enjoy what they have been putting out lately, to me it's just not as intriguing and compelling compared to what they have done previously.

But on top of that they seem to have very strict guard rails now that I believe tends to water everything down, making it all very similar in approach, and if you want to make the argument it's all in the case of trying not to offend anyone who might at any time read any of their content, then so be it. That does seem to be their number one objective right now as their perceived pathway to success and audience fulfillment. So be it, we'll see how d&d ebbs and flows over the next few years, will be interesting.

 

[Corinnguard]

They're a giant company catering to an even larger fanbase. They have to tread carefully lest they awaken the giant. Which they have done...several times.

Then there are the times where they failed their Stealth check and got noticed by the giant. And the giant wasn't happy.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You are suggesting that these things are different in scale but not kind and I would say that it is on its face difference in kind. One involves a state actor and involves an educational history text. The other involves a private corporation and an entertainment text. "Orwellian" cannot apply to the latter because its very definition requires both a state actor and rewriting history education.

I would disagree. I think the state certainly makes the scale more significant. But I also think, and many people who support issues of free speech or have concerns about censorship taking this position, that corporations are also very powerful and can have just as much of an effect on peoples perception of reality, the past, etc. Just as an example, yes censorship by the state is bad. Just look at what happens with that in some other countries. But in the US censorship can occur on the cooperate level with something like Amazon. Corporate censorship is a thing. That said, I wouldn't ever say the case of the state removing slavery from a text book, and WOTC removing words over sensitivity concerns are comparable. I just think the term Orwellian can be applied here (and I get in the novel, it is the state, but people use Orwellian all the time to talk to talk about things like corporate news).

besides all that, WotC is not pretending these things never happened (also required for Orwellian) -- it is just deciding to do better. If it was truly Orwellian, we wouldn't be talking about it because we would not even know.

It may not be there intent, but the result is going to be that it creates confusion around this because they are changing the book. If I go back and take one of my books written five years ago, and remove a bunch of things, replace them with new words, and just keep printing them, that obviously creates for many a false sense of what was originally published unless I am very clear about what I am doing.

My understanding is we are talking about it because someone noticed the changes. If they have been advertising these changes loudly, if there is a note in the books themselves, I would acknowledge that is totally different. But I think if it is a case like you often have on media sites, where a change is just slipped in, that is when it starts getting into Orwellian territory.

 

[Reynard]

I think for sure wotc has backed themselves into a small corner, but they want to be there. The content they can explore is much more limited than just word swapping in my view. The caution and hesitation for risk of offending "someone" out there, is very evident, and in my opinion is leading to inferior and uninspiring products beyond just my personal taste. Sure some of it is style of content preference, written and art. I just don't enjoy what they have been putting out lately, to me it's just not as intriguing and compelling compared to what they have done previously.

But on top of that they seem to have very strict guard rails now that I believe tends to water everything down, making it all very similar in approach, and if you want to make the argument it's all in the case of trying not to offend anyone who might at any time read any of their content, then so be it. That does seem to be their number one objective right now as their perceived pathway to success and audience fulfillment. So be it, we'll see how d&d ebbs and flows over the next few years, will be interesting.

I am curious what things you think are out of bounds.

 

[Morrus]

They're a giant company. I assume they base their decisions of what they think will make them the most money. Several people here have said the same, to me, in many threads.

I know what you ‘assume’, as does everybody else. You’ve made yourself very very very clear over and over again on many many threads. It’s your primary characteristic—assuming WotC’s nefarious thought patterns.

Don’t you think it’s getting a bit tired?