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.

 

[Corinnguard]

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.

Adepts in Level Up are those individuals that have trained their bodies and honed their minds to perfection. This class also includes brawlers and athletes.

 

[Charlaquin]

I going to be pedantic and disagree with this on a couple of points.

First, a number of the words are absolutely not synonyms. Incurious and dim-witted is one example, as they mean completely different things. One is about motivation, while the other is about intelligence.

Second, there are definitely changes where the new wording is less descriptive. For one, the article gives an example that changes "hordes of orcs" to "humanoid hordes" . That changes the wording from being one specific fantasy race of attackers to a generic group of unspecified humanoids. For another example, there is a case where the phrase "The city's living residents include mad necromancers, corrupt purveyors of human flesh, who" to "The city's living residents include necromancers, corrupt purveyors of human flesh, who". The new version has less adjectives making it literately less descriptive.

All that being said, none of these changes bother me. But I am the kind of stickler who thinks it's important to note that they are real changes that can have affects on the meaning of the text. Some of those changes are subtle, some less so. There's definitely a possibility that people reading the "same" books but with these different version of the text will experience things differently. But that's the point, isn't it?

Well, yes, the changes do alter the meanings of the passages in question; that’s kinda the point. Like, your first two examples, the change in meaning you identify is literally the intended effect of the change. WotC is trying to move away from characterizing entire humanoid species as inherently unintelligent or inherently violent. The goal is to make these changes without also making the language less evocative. They’re just trying to evoke something different than they did previously, or as @DEFCON 1 put it, be differently descriptive, not less descriptive.

As for the third example literally having fewer adjectives, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Adjectives can be nice, but they can also be superfluous. What was the word “mad” really adding to that sentence? Well, it was associating the city’s necromancers’ purveyance of human flesh with their madness, which if you want to avoid stigmatizing mental illness, is probably something you’d want to remove. Could they replace it with another adjective? Sure, but then you would also have to interrogate what that new adjective was contributing to the sentence. What do you put in there? Evil? Wicked? Cruel? Depraved? A lot of these are kind of already implicit in the whole purveyance of human flesh thing. Sometimes adjectives are like seasoning - the sentence isn’t done when there’s nothing you can add, it’s done when there’s nothing you can take away.

 

[Jahydin]

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

Understood.

Without getting into specifics, since it will always have an obvious real world analogue, at what point does having "sentient orcs that are capable of good" make the act of painting the caves red with their blood any better?

Not trying to be combative. As someone that never even uses NPCs for encounters (monsters only, save for maybe the one clearly BBEG) to avoid any "grey area" that it might be murder, I'm trying to understand.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I prefer Adept personally, but what WotC changes stuff to doesn't really matter to me anything, unless what they're doing influences the industry in ways I don't care for, which I'm not really seeing here. They're a huge company who want to maximize profit for their shareholders. it makes perfect sense that they would make these changes, although I'd prefer they did so more openly in the first place, or put them in the new book they're replacing all this with next year anyway.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

All great questions, but I would imagine not major priorities for the giant publically-traded company.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

But that's just how it goes. Culture and language evolve and change, and things that are perfectly fine for one generation are considered dated or occasionally offensive by the next. As we get older, we feel judged and defensive because things have moved on, but remember when we were the ones pushing the boundaries and annoying our elders? I certainly do!

It's normal. It's healthy. And if it makes you feel better, just remember: their time will come in turn. During the ethics unit in my Theory of Knowledge class, one of my favourite activities is when I ask the students to discuss which of their beliefs and expressions will be considered offensive or out of touch by their grandchildren. It's healthy and hilarious to watch them turn that critical gaze upon themselves.

 

[Charlaquin]

Is it the connection to "innocence" that offends here or the particular use of the word "pure" to describe it?

Offense is not the issue here. The emphasis on female virginity as a virtue, and that its loss somehow spoils a maiden’s purity - in this case making their presence no longer tolerable to a unicorn - is a perpetuation of a longstanding cultural practice of using shame to control women’s sexuality. If one thinks a sexually liberated society is a thing worth pursuing, one would be ill-served by uncritically perpetuating such practices.

 

[bedir than]

Without getting into specifics, since it will always have an obvious real world analogue, at what point does having "sentient orcs that are capable of good" make the act of painting the caves red with their blood any better?

Targeting people for violence based on their behavior is different than targeting them based on their bloodline.
I don't know how to be more clear than that.
If you want an anti-violent D&D I expect you won't find that supported by WotC

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

It would be more honest, certainly. Whether or not that would make it “better” would depend on the context of how it was used. Such an unabashed depiction of how the unicorn myth vilifies feminine sexuality could be used an incisive deconstruction of such tropes. Or it could just be another example of such a trope that happens not to beat around the bush as much.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Understood.

Without getting into specifics, since it will always have an obvious real world analogue, at what point does having "sentient orcs that are capable of good" make the act of painting the caves red with their blood any better?

Not trying to be combative. As someone that never even uses NPCs for encounters (monsters only, save for maybe the one clearly BBEG) to avoid any "grey area" that it might be murder, I'm trying to understand.

I am way more comfortable with an imperfect brutal and grey world where people need to resolve conflicts with violence, than one where some people are labelled non-people and killing them is seen as virtuous. The former just resembles real history, whilst the latter resembles justifications invented by the worst people of that history.