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.

 

[Clint_L]

As Morrus has pointed out, this is fundamentally a freedom of speech issue, and the irony is that many folks who seem to think they are advocating for freedom of speech are actually doing the opposite. They are criticizing WotC for exercising theirs.

WotC has every right to use whatever words they want in their publication. You have every right to not buy it, and bless.

All that is happening is that language and culture change, like always, and some folks, mostly older, don’t like it. Like always. I’m a language and literature teacher and my masters thesis is on the evolution of language (University of Victoria, 1996). I could show you a thousand examples of this. It is not some new example of thought policing, it is completely typical.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

When you say things like this, you are inventing a fake group of people in order to paint people of a similar perspective as extremists. It's really disingenuous and I feel like it takes away from the conversation instead of adding to it.

Do you really, truly believe WotC makes changes due to a "handful of people on Twitter?"

Absolutely, they mistake Twitter for real life, or at least reflective of it, and it's very much not. Look to twitter and you'd think think there was huge hatred for OA, look at OA sales and related products, and you quickly see its one if the most popular subsettings. Social media is designed to be super polarizing on all sides of issues, because rage makes more money then reason and compromise, it gets more clicks.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Absolutely, they mistake Twitter for real life, or at least reflective of it, and it's very much not. Look to twitter and you'd think think there was huge hatred for OA, look at OA sales and related products, and you quickly see its one if the most popular subsettings. Social media is designed to be super polarizing on all sides of issues, because rage makes more money then reason and compromise, it gets more clicks.

Of course social media is polarizing. But what makes you think WotC is being swayed by a "handful of people on Twitter?" Is it something WotC has actually said, or something someone else claimed?

I just think that by using strawman tactics (blaming a fictional group), you are adding to the polarization.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

As Morrus has pointed out, this is fundamentally a freedom of speech issue, and the irony is that many folks who seem to think they are advocating for freedom of speech are actually doing the opposite. They are criticizing WotC for exercising theirs.

WotC has every right to use whatever words they want in their publication. You have every right to not buy it.

All that is happening is that language and culture change, like always, and some folks, mostly older, don’t like it. Like always. I’m a language and literature teacher and my masters thesis is on the evolution of language (University of Victoria, 1996). I could show you a thousand examples of this. It is not some new example of thought policing, it is completely typical.

I don't folks are saying WotC shouldn't be allowed to do it, they just think it's a bad idea to do it. At the end of the day it's WotC and folks cam "vote with their wallets".

Personally I find these changes petty, but don't really care that much, it's more roll my eyes and move in thing. The semi Olympian erasure in Planescape that bothered me more.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

They hired professionals.

The views of these professionals don't nessarily reflect the POV of the broader audience, and they have to push a particular perspective to justify their employment and future employment,like if they find none of this stuff is an issue, then WotC has no reason to hire them in the future and might feel like they payed these folks for nothing, so the pressure is to find things to object to, to justify their employment.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Of course social media is polarizing. But what makes you think WotC is being swayed by a "handful of people on Twitter?" Is it something WotC has actually said, or something someone else claimed?

I just think that by using strawman tactics (blaming a fictional group), you are adding to the polarization.

Actions, I don't believe most people has an issue with these words, I've seen no evidence these is the common view.

 

[bedir than]

The views of these professionals don't nessarily reflect the POV of the broader audience, and they have to push a particular perspective to justify their employment and future employment,like if they find none of this stuff is an issue, then WotC has no reason to hire them in the future and might feel like they payed these folks for nothing, so the pressure is to find things to object to, to justify their employment.

If the broader audience's view is that racist language and tropes are required for D&D that's a big problem.

Fortunately there's no evidence that inclusivity hurts sales, for anyone. More inclusive brands always do better in the long term

 

[Micah Sweet]

About changing already published works. Tolkien famously made extensive changes to Hobbit over a decade after it was first published.

Changes that were clearly documented and marked as a revised edition.

 

[Reef]

Agreed with the idea that bad traditions should replaced, but the question is can WotC tell the difference between removing genuinely bad traditions and removing things based on a handful of people on twitter find upsetting?

Claiming it's only a 'handful of people on Twitter' is an attempt to marginalize viewpoints of people who were already bring marginalized.

"Why make changes when the majority (ie me) are perfectly happy bring catered to?"

 

[AstroCat]

If the broader audience's view is that racist language and tropes are required for D&D that's a big problem.

Fortunately there's no evidence that inclusivity hurts sales, for anyone. More inclusive brands always do better in the long term

That's not true, not a judgement on right or wrong of it, just that is not factually true. Audience has a big say on success, and being inclusive to one group, might be viewed as exclusionary to another.