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.

 

[Parmandur]

Does it really matter what WotC says gnolls are like?

It matters somewhat, since after 10 years we don't have official Gnoll stats...even though the life path system in Exandria has Gnolls as a possibility if you roll a random PC.

 

[Charlaquin]

Also, I’m just gonna say it… A lot of trans women identify pretty strongly with spotted hyenas.

 

[Reynard]

I don’t think it matters any less that what they say orcs are like…

As much or as little as everything else that is setting off this thread.

It matters somewhat, since after 10 years we don't have official Gnoll stats...even though the life path system in Exandria has Gnolls as a possibility if you roll a random PC.

I'm just saying it is one of those things where we, as gamers, shrug and do what we want. WotC makes lots of decisions we wouldn't make in their publications. Gnolls in your world are whatever you want gnolls to be. Like, say, gnome-troll hybrids. Why not?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I’m pretty sure they’re just going to be fiends in the new MM

Good thing gnolls aren't WotC property then.

 

[Reynard]

Also, I’m just gonna say it… A lot of trans women identify pretty strongly with spotted hyenas.

Is that a thing? I did not know that.
::googles::
Oh, that is really neat. Right on.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm just saying it is one of those things where we, as gamers, shrug and do what we want. WotC makes lots of decisions we wouldn't make in their publications. Gnolls in your world are whatever you want gnolls to be. Like, say, gnome-troll hybrids. Why not?

Well, yeah, but the same is true of orcs. Yes, we can all make whatever changes we want in our own games. But the default presentation still matters, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Does it really matter what WotC says gnolls are like?

Better to ask, "Does it really matter what WotC says about anything?".

 

[Reynard]

Better to ask, "Does it really matter what WotC says about anything?".

Fair.

 

[Gradine]

Agree, never gonna happen. They have positioned themselves in a way that they can not remove themselves from. Anything even remotely "risky" in the slightest way is a no go for them. Taking creative chances of any kind is off the table for wotc, for the very long foreseeable future.

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:

Sometimes — maybe even oftentimes — writers and publishers fall back on tropes and “evocative” language common to the genre without much if any reflection. Making some effort to dig into those choices and to hear other perspectives about them and to be a little self-critical can show that what we intend to evoke is not in actuality what we do evoke through our writing. That’s when it’s more creative and more challenging to change it. Let’s say what we mean to say, without dragging all the unspoken, unexamined, and sometimes hurtful baggage into the game.

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?

 

[Reynard]

Well, yeah, but the same is true of orcs. Yes, we can all make whatever changes we want in our own games. But the default presentation still matters, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation in the first place.

Well, orcs have an broad pop-cultural footprint I don't think gnolls share.