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.

 

[Blue Orange]

No, because beer-drinking is universal, even on Oktoberfest. However, people saying "Top of the Morning To Ye" in a terrible Irish Accent on St Patrick's day IS cultural appropriation.

The Irish just put up with it (while cringing), because it's hardly the worst thing that's ever happened to them.

But that raises another question. Most other groups have had bad stuff happen to them. Even the great imperialist powers like Britain and Spain were conquered by the Romans at one point. The Mongols used to push the Russians around.

(And beer is hardly universal...it's verboten, er, haram in most Muslim countries for instance.)

I have neither Romanian nor Japanese ancestry. If I were to make a game set in Romania, I'd probably get little blowback. Japan, I'd probably get protests. This is true even though Japan is vastly wealthier (one of the wealthiest nations in the world, in fact) and is quite successful at monetizing their culture. (Anime and manga are much more popular than American comic books and cartoons in the USA now, from what I can tell.)

The Irish have a long and painful history of exploitation and oppression. (How many starved to death in the potato famine?) Yet I don't think anyone would complain if I wrote another pseudo-Celtic fantasy novel (though I'd have a hard time getting any attention). Similarly, Poland gets dismembered by its neighbors every few hundred years, but I doubt if I wanted to make a game based on Polish folktales anyone would complain. (I've actually got some ancestry there, but it's complicated.)

Which cultures are 'public domain'? It's obviously not a matter of current wealth, or Japan and Qatar would be kosher. Ability to profit off their own cultural products? Japan again, and China and South Korea (Chinese movies are starting to outsell American ones just because their domestic market is so huge). Add in India--they make a lot of money off Bollywood movies. As for past oppression, well, most countries have that, but there are plenty of European countries like Poland, Hungary, Ireland, and Ukraine with miserable histories of being pushed around by the larger powers in their neighborhood.

 

[FrogReaver]

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,

In general I agree, but most attempts I see of making diverse and inclusive content are pretty shallow IMO. It's rather formulaic - take an existing work, replace straight white characters with diverse and inclusive characters, make a few mentions of racism or sexism and you've made a diverse and inclusive product.

That's not the only way to do it (and i'm sure not all are being done this way), but attempts like I just described are both prevalent and inherently less creative IMO. Do you agree?

Also - is creating content featuring straight white males for straight white males not diverse and inclusive?

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:

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?

I think answering that question would be considered not diverse or inclusive and thus be against the forum rules. I would love to answer, but I'll respect the rules as I understand them.

 

[Reynard]

No, because beer-drinking is universal, even on Oktoberfest. However, people saying "Top of the Morning To Ye" in a terrible Irish Accent on St Patrick's day IS cultural appropriation.

The Irish just put up with it (while cringing), because it's hardly the worst thing that's ever happened to them.

Having a taco night at your restaurant is cultural appreciation. Having the waiters where big Sombreros on taco night is cultural appropriation.

 

[Morrus]

Some of those are "Double Plus Ungood".

No, you’re confused. A publisher exercising the freedom to express themselves the way they want to is the exact opposite of Orwellian. Trying to suppress their right to do so… now that’s Orwellian. You’re not on the freedom of speech side here like you like to imagine yourself to be, you’re attempting to censor them. You are doing the thing you’re incorrectly accusing them of.

 

[Reynard]

I vote for "Orwellian" as the most abused term of the last five years or so.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, you’re confused. A publisher exercising the freedom to express themselves the way they want to is the exact opposite of Orwellian. Trying to suppress their right to do so… now that’s Orwellian. You’re not on the freedom of speech side here like you like to imagine yourself to be, you’re attempting to censor them. You are doing the thing you’re incorrectly accusing them of.

Hmmm, is it Orwellian to use free speech to try and erase the past?

That's a conundrum!

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

I vote for "Orwellian" as the most abused term of the last five years or so.

You're gonna need to do some addition there, hoss.

 

[FrogReaver]

There are 11 Loony Toons and Merrie Melody cartoons (referred to as the "Censored 11") that have not been distributed for viewing since 1968. And on others with somewhat offensive content, they are presented with a preceding warning.

Even the Muppet Show has occasional warnings on some of their episodes, due to insensitive depictions.



Morrus already made a post about this - WotC is not saying anything about what you choose to do. They are making a choice of what they present in their own works. You still get to do what you want to do.

We live in countries with tens and hundreds of millions of other human beings, on a planet of something like 8 billion. In order to get along, we need to be considerate of one another. We cannot expect to have the benefits of this large society without also making some concessions to its operation.

As an example - If I recall correctly you have raised concerns at the historical depiction of Spanish people. You'd really like it if folks listened to your concerns, and adjusted how they speak about the Spanish accordingly, right? If you want that consideration, you should also offer that same consideration to others.

It really is just the Golden Rule - treat others the way you wish to be treated.

To be fair, I think children's content should be treated a bit differently - and generally the public at large has always demanded it be.

Mostly agree with the rest - though I think we can make judgements about whether a company made the right decision on an issue.

 

[Morrus]

Hmmm, is it Orwellian to use free speech to try and erase the past?

That's a conundrum!

It’s a bit Orwellian to claim that somebody choosing to express themselves in a certain way is “erasing the past”.

It’s not a ‘conundrum’. It’s just suppression of their rights to express themselves in ways you don’t personally approve of. It makes you the oppressor.

Stop telling other people how they are required to express themselves and just worry about your own expression.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Hmmm, is it Orwellian to use free speech to try and erase the past?

That's a conundrum!

How does that apply to this situation?