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.

 

[Hussar]

No, I just said "a super modern 5e d&d based game". Where'd you'd get the traditional DnD tropes thing from?

I'm saying BG3 is super new school D&D but I'm still enjoying the game because Larian did such a good job with it even if I don't love all the changes to FR or all of the content, I still can have a good time with it. It's leagues beyond the content wotc has been putting out.

And again it's ultra new school, without a doubt. Not barely a "LotR" trope as far as the eye can see, well mostly. Heck, even most dwarves don't even have beards! I pretty much don't even think of it as "d&d", it's almost like it's own separate thing for me, setting and game.

So it’s okay for other companies to make “ultra new school” DnD. Replete with all sorts of inclusive elements and they make a fantastic product.

But when WotC does it they are releasing uninteresting pablum catering to tiny niche groups.

That’s a take I suppose.

 

[Corinnguard]

If people put half the effort into actually learning facts that they seem to be putting into their misguided and usually harmful opinions the world would be a much better place.

It's not just learning the facts, it's also being a critical thinker.

 

[Vaalingrade]

And yes I know the argument that “but orcs represent real people. And does every other imaginary creature ever created since the dawn of man. Why are Orcs special?

They aren't special. They're just the ones we use as an example because it would take more memory than this site has on its servers to rehash every species D&D uses in a problematic way due to its traditional roots in literature from the 30's through the 60's that very purposefully invented people as a stand in for the idealized hero to alter or kill to prove his superiority and by extension the superiority of the author's culture.

 

[MGibster]

It’s not a question of celebrating St Patrick’s Day. It’s the stereotypical bad Irish accent and “Top of the morning to ye” that‘s the offensive cultural appropriation. There honestly should be a standard response to such things and I’m thinking it should be “Céad míle fyas!”

Sure. But did we get that from Ireland or from those Irish to immigrated to the United States? Trick question, it doesn't matter because everyone is Irish on St. Patrick's Day.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t think any Orc is going to be offended by WotC using Orcs as antagonists in a campaign setting. Not do I think faeries are going to have an issue with their use in a book. Or Xenomorphs or Santa’s elves or the lizard men who secretly run the world from their caves at the center of the earth. Because they aren’t real (sorry Santa).

And yes I know the argument that “but orcs represent real people.

Orcs don’t “represent Afro-Americans.” The ways in which the text presents orcs as monstrous bears a deeply uncomfortable resemblance to the ways in which many marginalized groups have been dehumanized in real life, most especially black people, most especially in America.

 

[Morrus]

And yes I know the argument that “but orcs represent real people.

No you don’t. Because that is not the argument. It never was.

 

[Irlo]

And yes I know the argument that “but orcs represent real people.

That’s a common made-up misrepresentation of the argument. There are plenty of threads of this forum that would clear that up for you, if you care to learn about the actual concerns of actual people.

[Edit: I posted this not because I want to engage in this discussion again and again, but because I don’t want to leave this misrepresentation unchallenged. I’m happy to see a few others jumped in while I was typing.]

 

[MGibster]

No, they’re not.

They are in the United States. Believe it or not, we have our own customs that differ from you guys.

 

[Umbran]

And yes I know the argument that “but orcs represent real people.

That's not the only argument, though.

Another argument is that we are continuing to repeat and normalize the idea that it is okay to put an entire people into one conceptual box and then use that as justification for harming or abusing them. Even if orcs aren't real, or don't directly represent real people, it is insisting that it is okay to re-enact in imagination the same forms of racism real-world people experienced, and claim it is good!

As if it is too much to ask that we elevate our play just a little to avoid that.

 

[AstroCat]

So it’s okay for other companies to make “ultra new school” DnD. Replete with all sorts of inclusive elements and they make a fantastic product.

But when WotC does it they are releasing uninteresting pablum catering to tiny niche groups.

That’s a take I suppose.

I'm at the end but Larian's absolutely sincere depth of mechanical quality, I love the turn based combat, and fantastic writing makes for very compelling gameplay, not to mention the sound design, composition are exceptional and the art direction ranges from "ok, not my thing" to absolutely amazing.

In my opinion they are all leagues beyond anything wotc proper has been releasing lately, albeit in a different medium.

The "inclusive elements" you mention of BG3 are not my main reason to play the game but they are undeniably there. Some are not directly my thing, since they cater to a zillion options, maybe even an eye roll or smirk (bear) for a second here and there but really that's fine. Overall, I'm still able to totally enjoying myself. I treat it as it's own world and setting, removed in a way from "traditional" d&d and FRs as I know it, it stands up on it's own, independent, almost like an alt universe. It's an amazing achievement for a game developer to have pulled of a game of this scope and quality, really. Now excuse, me Shadowheart and myself have some serious business to attend to!