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.

 

[Distracted DM]

I also like the idea of not calling people slaves, but enslaved. That shows way better that they are victims. Not that slave is an inherent attribute of some people.

I haven't heard it put that way before, that's a good argument for changing the word usage. Requires an extra word in there, "enslaved folk/people/whatever" but yeah.
Would you still say "Slave Master/Owner?" Or would you have to lengthen it out to "Master of Enslaved Folk?"

 

[Hussar]

It’s not to hard to imagine why WotC would be doing this on little cat’s feet.

Imagine the endless debate over every single little change if the actually drew attention to this.

 

[darjr]

Note this discounts some of the folks who say they are doing these things just for cynical clout.

 

[Hussar]

Note this discounts some of the folks who say they are doing these things just for cynical clout.

That's the other issue too. If WotC started making a show of doing this, there's just no real upside. If they tell people they are making these changes, not only are they going to create a giant fitshorm of criticism, but, also, they will immediately be accused of only doing it to "look good".

This is really probably the best way forward. Just do it. Get it done and move on.

 

[darjr]

That's the other issue too. If WotC started making a show of doing this, there's just no real upside. If they tell people they are making these changes, not only are they going to create a giant fitshorm of criticism, but, also, they will immediately be accused of only doing it to "look good".

This is really probably the best way forward. Just do it. Get it done and move on.

I don’t know if it is the best way. Maybe.

But while I think it’s completely cool for them to make changes to their stuff they do have some obligation to tell their customers who are paying for access.

But yea, unfortunately, either way they are going to catch flack.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I hope I can say it here: We a need clear and coherent criteria. We need a good reason to explain because somebody can or can't be allowed.

There is a right and a wrong way. The right way to be inclusive is like saying "everybody is wellcome, be polite and kind, and have fun!", and the wrong way is "if your point of view is not like mine, then you are not wellcome here".

 

[Staffan]

I haven't heard it put that way before, that's a good argument for changing the word usage. Requires an extra word in there, "enslaved folk/people/whatever" but yeah.
Would you still say "Slave Master/Owner?" Or would you have to lengthen it out to "Master of Enslaved Folk?"

I have seen such people referred to as "slavers". I'm not sure that's proper usage though – my understanding is that that word is for those who capture and enslave people, not for those who buy and claim to own them. Although I guess most slave owners would also be slavers, for placing the children of enslaved people into bondage as well.

 

[Hussar]

I hope I can say it here: We a need clear and coherent criteria. We need a good reason to explain because somebody can or can't be allowed.

There is a right and a wrong way. The right way to be inclusive is like saying "everybody is wellcome, be polite and kind, and have fun!", and the wrong way is "if your point of view is not like mine, then you are not wellcome here".

If someone could do that, they'd be making a HELL of a lot more money than writing for WotC.

See, that's the issue. There isn't a clear and coherent criteria. It's evolving. And will always be evolving. Language shifts and changes and we learn and develop new ways of looking at things over time. New information comes to light and we begin to reexamine how we view things. This can't be a "Well, here's the rules that we are going to follow from here on in." Because those rules are grounded in what we believe to be true right now.

And we know, from experience, that what we believe to be true right now is most likely not actually true. Or, it's only true from a certain perspective.

In other words, this is far, far to complicated an issue to have a "clear and consistent" criteria.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Changes can be inevitable, and some times even these can be necessary, but if your criteria is not coherent, then you lose all authority to report what is wrong.

I dare to say WotC has got some unconfortable experiencie with the Chinese censorship, but this can become really annoying when there is a double standards, the criteria is not coherent, due to arbitrary whims somebody is allowed or banned. Hasbro could have lost money by fault of that censorship criteria.

Some things in Baldur's Gate 3 have been censored to can be sold in Japanese market.

Some times there is a reason for a cersorship, but this has to be explained. For example an episode of the preschool cartoon Pepa Pig was censored in Australia because it told spiders shouldn't be feared, but in Australia some spiders may be really dangerous.

I guess we can agree the entertaiment industry should try to be ideologically neutral. Audience doesn't want their money to suffer more propaganda. If you want to change the mind by the people, then you can't force them to agree you. This doesn't work like this.

And other countries have got a radically different point of view about sensitivity and inclusivity.

Disclaimer: No agent under the orders of the Cardinal Richelieu was hurt for the writting of this post.

 

[Staffan]

I guess we can agree the entertaiment industry should try to be ideologically neutral.

Absolutely not. "Neutrality" basically means supporting the status quo and, to quote doctor Horrible, "The status is not quo.".