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.

 

[Lanefan]

Censorship is controlling how others communicate. In no way is Wizards of the Coast policing your own language.

Self-censorship is still censorship.

 

[Parmandur]

I am a person of Irish descent. But I'm English, so I don't presume to speak for Irish people. But green beer... what? Is that a thing?

Yeah, green beer in March is pretty common in the U.S., as a seasonal sales gimmick for the Holiday.

 

[Corinnguard]

Is that OK?

I think that for it to be okay, a person needs to work past their own preconceptions and biases of that other culture. They need to talk to someone from that culture and not be afraid to ask questions. They need to read about that culture from authors who belong to that culture. And they really need to get out of their comfort zone. Something that most people aren't comfortable in doing because it means challenging their preconceptions and biases head on.

 

[Jahydin]

Weirdly enough, it is a thing here, haha.

"Simply put, green beer is beer plus food coloring. The colorful tradition dates back to around 1914 when one of the first accounts of the drink was recorded. At the time, a doctor named Professor Thomas H. Curtin made the green beer for a party at his New York clubhouse. As luck would have it, the custom of dyeing beer green became more and more popular. While green beer became a holiday staple in the U.S., the drink never really made strides in Ireland."

 

[Lanefan]

Why?

I have a novel I wrote in 2018 that has been available on Kindle since that time. I included some elements that while intended to be progressive and inclusive, are kind of clumsy by today's standards (one can learn a lot in 5 years). Am I not allowed to go back and make changes to it in order to better achieve my initial aims? Should that book remain forever in its initial state

In my opinion? Yes it should. That book, like it or not, is now an artifact of history; and history - when the facts are known - is and always should be locked in.

no matter how much better it might be if it goes through a "retroactive" cultural sensitivity editorial pass?

And if-when such is done, the revised version would ideally be somehow noted as such in order to distinguish it from the original. If for example the original title was My First Book, the new edition might be titled My First Book, Revised and Updated or My First Book, 2023 Edition.

 

[Irlo]

Self-censorship is still censorship.

Writing is deciding what to write and what to leave out.

 

[Vaalingrade]

In my opinion? Yes it should. That book, like it or not, is now an artifact of history; and history - when the facts are known - is and always should be locked in.

What exact facts need to be known in a work of fiction or an instruction manual for a game?

 

[Autumnal]

Apparently, grammar, conscience, and style are also censorship. I’d suggest that pure stream of consciousness might not be, but then we decide when to write and to not write, and that’s obviously also censorship…

 

[Morrus]

Self-censorship is still censorship.

This is an utterly meaningless phrase. It's literal semantic word-twisting. It's not a real argument. It's a deliberate distraction. It's nonsensical.

You "self-censor" every second of every day. It's called "choosing what you want to say." How do you talk to your grandmother? Your children? Your boss? Your employees? Your customers? Your partner? Look, I don't want to use the word 'stupid' but that's pretty dumb. Do you say everything you think to everybody you say without filter? No? Why not? (I know you don't because you're here, not dead or in prison or in care).

"Self-censorship" is "personal choice". Implying that personal choice is wrong by labelling it as "self-censorship" is just so agenda-driven that there's no conversation to be had. You've planted a ridiculous stake, you're standing being it, and declaring to the world that it makes sense and you won't move.

Good for you, I guess. But there's no point talking to you. This post is for people reading it.

 

[FrogReaver]

That’s a common made-up misrepresentation of the argument. There are plenty of threads of this forum that would clear that up for you, if you care to learn about the actual concerns of actual people.

#IwasThere

That's certainly one of the arguments I heard.

[Edit: I posted this not because I want to engage in this discussion again and again, but because I don’t want to leave this misrepresentation unchallenged. I’m happy to see a few others jumped in while I was typing.]

Same. Let's not engage, but just as you - i didn't want to leave this misrepresentation unchallenged.