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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Within the context of what 'pure maidens' mean, it's referring to a maiden that is a virgin or celibate - the implication being that any woman who's had sex is not pure.

Would it be better if it had straight up said that the maiden needed to be a virgin, with no specific reference to purity? It would still be true to the myth that way.

 

[Distracted DM]

I was unaware of the 'decolonizing' thing until I read it in SlyFlourish's new monster book.

Can you elaborate on this? I assume it's the ?monster making? book but I don't have it.

 

[Distracted DM]

Would it be better if it had straight up said that the maiden needed to be a virgin, with no specific reference to purity? It would still be true to the myth that way.

A good question. Is it the language or the myth that is harmful, or both?
"Only a virgin can catch a unicorn via a strand of her hair and ride it."

I can see pure = virgin being something to move on from, but do we need to abandon the entirety of the myth?
I ASSUME just the term because if not, we'd have to start dumping a lot of myths that we built fantasy upon- but I have no expertise in the professional sensitivity department.

I guess it's a tough question?

 

[Micah Sweet]

A good question. Is it the language or the myth that is harmful, or both?
"Only a virgin can catch a unicorn via a strand of her hair and ride it."

I can see pure = virgin being something to move on from, but do we need to abandon the entirety of the myth?
I ASSUME just the term because if not, we'd have to start dumping a lot of myths that we built fantasy upon- but I have no expertise in the professional sensitivity department.

I guess it's a tough question?

It is a tough question, and different folks will have different answers (which should be ok). I do think there are folks out there who want the surface veneer of fantasy without the underpinnings that explain why and how it exists at all.

 

[Jahydin]

A good question. Is it the language or the myth that is harmful, or both?
"Only a virgin can catch a unicorn via a strand of her hair and ride it."

I can see pure = virgin being something to move on from, but do we need to abandon the entirety of the myth?
I ASSUME just the term because if not, we'd have to start dumping a lot of myths that we built fantasy upon- but I have no expertise in the professional sensitivity department.

I guess it's a tough question?

Exactly what I'm wondering.

One of my favorite aspects of reading D&D as a kid was how it acted like a portal to our archaic, ancient past; so kind of sad to see any instance of "fixing" established folklore.

That said, since joining ENWorld, I do see why others push to change D&D into an ideal fantasy world that shares our current ideas and morals rather than one that calls back to our ancestor's outdated ones. In a world where the strong survive and the weak are crushed though, I get a bit confused at where the lines are drawn. As long as you're reward XP and gold for killing, make violence the bulk of the mechanics and primary solution to every encounter, and have clearing out "hostile" areas the main objective of every adventure, you kind of have a "problematic" game at its core, right?

And if you remove or change that, is is still D&D?

 

[Corinnguard]

I mean, I would love if they changed the Barbarian's name

What would you like it to be changed to? Level Up changed the name for a couple of it's classes. Barbarians became Berserkers, Monks became Adepts and Paladins became Heralds.

 

[bedir than]

Exactly what I'm wondering.

One of my favorite aspects of reading D&D as a kid was how it acted like a portal to our archaic, ancient past; so kind of sad to see any instance of "fixing" established folklore.

That said, since joining ENWorld, I do see why others push to change D&D into an ideal fantasy world that shares our current ideas and morals rather than one that calls back to our ancestor's outdated ones. In a world where the strong survive and the weak are crushed though, I get a bit confused at where the lines are drawn. As long as you're reward XP and gold for killing, make violence the bulk of the mechanics and primary solution to every encounter, and have clearing out "hostile" areas the main objective of every adventure, you kind of have a "problematic" game at its core, right?

And if you remove or change that, is is still D&D?

None of the changes remove violence from the game.

They do remove the idea that violence is deserved based on the birth of the opponent

 

[Alzrius]

A good question. Is it the language or the myth that is harmful, or both?
"Only a virgin can catch a unicorn via a strand of her hair and ride it."

I can see pure = virgin being something to move on from, but do we need to abandon the entirety of the myth?
I ASSUME just the term because if not, we'd have to start dumping a lot of myths that we built fantasy upon- but I have no expertise in the professional sensitivity department.

I guess it's a tough question?

Plus, we'd also lose a lot of the humor that can be found when riffing off of those old myths.

 

[Parmandur]

What would you like it to be changed to? Level Up changed the name for a couple of it's classes. Barbarians became Berserkers, Monks became Adepts and Paladins became Heralds.

I would change Barbarian to Berserker: it is solid in thst it describes what the Class does in play, while removing the assumptions that should stay in Backgroujd. Titus Pollo of Rome or Porthos of Paris are "Barbarians" in D&D terms, despite being citizens from the center of urban civilzations.

I would also change Monk to Mystic (the BECMI name for the Class), and let Monastacism be part of Background rather than Class.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

My fear is this speech may not helping really to build bridges but to close doors, creating new taboos until ridiculous levels. Then we have to stop and wonder why any thing is right or wrong.

Do you remember the sitcom "Friends"? They tried to be the modernest sitcom of their time, but now any elements are not wellcome for the standards of the new generation.

Speedy Gonzalez, the cartoon character could be cancelled, but Mexicans answered it shouldn't because it is too loved by them. Pepe le Pew was cancelled.

What if I say "7th Sea" is (potentially) offensive because the author is expressing his own prejudices unconsciously about the History and the different people from Europe? History is written by victors, but after rewritten by the new lords.

* Is the children cartoon "Conan the Barbarian" (for sales of Hasbro action figures) retitled "Conan the berseker"?

Please, don't lose the good sense.