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.

 

[Iosue]

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

Source? I’m hard-pressed to think of what would be acceptable in the North American market that would not be acceptable in the Japanese one.

 

[MGibster]

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.

I don't think entertainment has ever been ideologically netural nor am I sure it's possible. And if it is possible, whatever they produced would be devoid of any meaning. Even crummy science fiction movies like Avatar and Battlefield Earth have something to say and you can't say something without having some ideology in there. In season 1 or 2 of The Flash, someone casually mentions Barry's boss, the captain, a man, has a husband, and it's just something everyone accepts without any commentary. That's an example of ideology in fiction. It's not exactly a neutral stance.

 

[Alzrius]

Source? I’m hard-pressed to think of what would be acceptable in the North American market that would not be acceptable in the Japanese one.

Baldur's Gate 3 Scenes Deemed Too Risque For Japan

Some things were never going to fly.

screenrant.com

 

[GothmogIV]

I was unaware of the 'decolonizing' thing until I read it in SlyFlourish's new monster book.

 

[Hussar]

And exactly who’s ideologically neutral stance should we be observing?

 

[Blue Orange]

And exactly who’s ideologically neutral stance should we be observing?

Exactly. WoTC's fanbase is demanding more inclusivity, so that's what they're going to do.

EDIT: as GothmogIV says below, if they perceive they will make more money, that's what they're going to do.

 

[GothmogIV]

Exactly. WoTC's fanbase is demanding more inclusivity, so that's what they're going to do.

If WotC perceives it will make more money by making these changes, that's what they'll do.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm not a fan of the way the language everywhere is getting excessively smoothed-out and less tropey and descriptive. We lose some detail and diversity within the setting that way.

But are these word changes actually less descriptive, or just differently descriptive?

"Incurious" is no less descriptive than "dim-witted". "Merciless" is not more smoothed-over than "savage". They are all merely relative synonyms to each other, so selecting a different word choice is not making this less descriptive.

And here the thing... you know what are also relative synonyms? "Tropey" and "generic". Something becomes a trope when it has been used over and over and over so many times that it has just become standardized and lost any sense of "detail and diversity". So making choices that are less "tropey" are making things less generic-- less overused-- more creative. Always just following tropes is not the boon that some people might think it is-- it's the easier and oftentimes less original thing to do. And that is the antithesis of what a lot of designers and players would want in a creative endeavor such as this.

Tropes can have their place, but they aren't the correct answer all the time. And thus moving away from them in certain instances is not automatically the wrong choice.

 

[GothmogIV]

One thing in life I've learned over many decades: just because something isn't important to me doesn't mean it's not important to someone else. These changes don't hurt anything. I'm done playing WotC D&D for a lot of reasons, but none of them have to do with changing the word 'dark' to 'vile.' I was unaware about 'decolonizing' the language of WotC D&D until a few weeks ago. Apparently that's a thing, and that thing takes 0% skin off of my nose. As Thomas Jefferson said, "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

 

[Umbran]

I'm not a fan of the way the language everywhere is getting excessively smoothed-out and less tropey and descriptive. We lose some detail and diversity within the setting that way.

No, we don't.

Use of tropes is shorthand. Tropes are the memes and macros of content. If you want detail and diversity, you have to go well beyond the tropes anyhow.