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.

 

[tomedunn]

I've seen this come up a few times now, but while these changes did include replacing certain words, like savage, with other words, that doesn't mean those words were removed from the core rule books in their entirety.

Take savage for example. You can still find four instances of it used in the DMG.

1. Chapter 1, "Invading Forces" table: Entry 6 is "A savage tribe".
2. Chapter 1, "Campaign Theme": The third bullet says "A campaign featuring troubled heroes who confront not only the savagery of the bestial creatures of the world, but also the beast within — the rage and fury that lies in their own hearts."
3. Chapter 1, "Levels 17-20: Masters of the World": The second sentence of the third paragraph reads "Characters traverse otherworldly realms and explore demiplanes and other extraplanar locales, where they fight savage balor demons, titans, archdevils, lich archmages, and even avatars of the gods themselves."
4. Chapter 2, "Known Worlds of the Material Plane": The first sentence of the final paragraph reads "On Mystara (a heroic-fantasy world born out of the earliest editions of the D&D game), diverse cultures, savage monsters, and warring empires collide."

Where these uses differ from the ones that were changed is in their relation to location. Specifically their relation to the "wilds", in one form or another.

• Chapter 1, "Levels 1-4: Local Heroes": The second sentence of the last paragraph now reads "These characters navigate dangerous terrain and explore haunted crypts, where they can expect to fight ruthless bandits, ferocious wolves, giant spiders, evil cultists, bloodthirsty ghouls, and hired thugs."
• Chapter 1, "Levels 5-10: Heroes of the Realm": The second sentence of the final paragraph now reads "These adventurers venture into fearsome wilds and ancient ruins, where they confront brutal giants, ferocious hydras, fearless golems, evil yuan-ti, scheming devils, bloodthirsty demons, crafty mind flayers, and drow assassins."
• Chapter 5, "Wilderness Survival": The intro paragraph now reads "Adventuring in the wilderness presents a host of perils beyond the threats of monstrous predators and merciless raiders."

In all three of these instances, because of there references to the "wilds" (outside of typical settlements, towns, and cities), the term "savage" can also be read as "uncivilized" (not must be, but can be). That appears to be what WotC is trying to address with the changes made in these instances. These are nuanced, pointed changes, not broad copy and paste replacements.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

I think it would seem to depend on their particular mode of expression. Could go either way IMO.

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

I'm sorry - but criticizing your chosen expression isn't suppressing your right to express yourself. Painting a critic as an oppressor just for criticism is the truly oppressive tactic, IMO of course.

 

[Reynard]

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

Maybe. I mean, if America's biggest text book manufacturers were being pressured by a state level government to erase slavery as the cause of the American Civil War (just by way of random example) then that might qualify.

I'm not sure what that has to do with D&D though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

This is why I don't see a good reason not to use any particular culture in a creative work, including my own. Doing restricts and (I hesitate to say it) gatekeeps the freedom to write what you want.

 

[MGibster]

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.

Is it really appropriation? Here in the United States, we've been celebrating St. Patrick's Day since the 18th century, before the colonist decided to separate from the British. We had a flood of Irish Catholic immigrants in the 1850s and St. Patrick's Day became a more important part of American culture. We didn't appropriate the holiday, it was freely shared with us by Irish immigrants.

 

[FrogReaver]

How does that apply to this situation?

Free speech = being able to change your work however you deem fit
Orwellian (in this context) = Changing your work in an attempt to hide/change past offensive language

Now for the particular facts - i don't know what kind of disclaimer was given with these changes - so maybe there's no attempting to hide in this particular case - in which case no hiding/changing the past = not Orwellian.

There's quite a bit of nuance here IMO.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

What if they want to wear big Sombreros? Should that be a restricted piece of headwear?

 

[Morrus]

I think the weird bizarro thing here is why are people telling a publisher what they’re not allowed to write and how they are not allowed to express themselves then claiming they’re the ones being suppressed?

It’s mind-boggling how censors think they’re the censored.

Stop telling others what to write.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think the weird bizarro thing here is why are people telling a publisher what they’re not allowed to write and how they are not allowed to express themselves then claiming they’re the ones being suppressed?

It’s mind-boggling how censors think they’re the censored.

Stop telling others what to write.

....Irony

 

[DarkCrisis]

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.

Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.

As I mentioned, some of the changes are fine. Some I disagree. At what point it to far?

But yea as a company they can do whatever they want to their product for whatever reason. Doesn’t mean I have to agree or like it.