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.

 

[ReshiIRE]

Invoking Orwell over the word changes of a particular printing of a roleplaying game book contributes to the dilution of the term into meaningless and promotes all sorts of poor usage of the concepts.

Orwell was talking about governments and political figures, and worlds in which we wouldn't even be able to talk about this stuff.

You can use the term and argue it's correct.

You can also realise it's damn well inappropriate to do so if you care about what Orwell was talking about and want to fight back oppression in the real world, because diluting concepts like this is exactly what Orwell was afraid of happening through concepts like doublespeak.

Orwell would be ashamed of the internet, because of how many terms have been ruined through over use, insincerity and simple misuse. Don't contribute to that any further.

 

[FrogReaver]

Orwellian is a broad concept Hussar. It need not include all the other elements such as thought policing or a tyrannical government. We use the term Orwellian to describe newsrooms engaging in bad journalism all the time for that reason. Orwellian can include any number of features from Orwells dystopia. Altering historical information is one of those features. And I would argue when you update a book from 2014 without letting people know, you are in effect erasing history.

You don't agree with my usage. Fair enough. I haven't persuaded you, which is fine. But I am using the word in a perfectly acceptable way based on the position I am advocating (but if you don't think them doing this rises to Orwellian, that is fair).

For what it’s worth - I agree.

Orwells dystopia had multiple characteristics. Something doesn’t have to exhibit all of them to be Orwellian. 1 May very well be sufficient.

That said if it’s just 1 characteristic then it’s probably better to just call out that single characteristic. Less contentious. More clear. Maybe less fun?

 

[Charlaquin]

Orwellian is a broad concept Hussar.

No, it’s pretty specific, actually. Like, 1984 had a very specific message, and most of the time when people use the term “Orwellian” flippantly, they’re Not Even Wrong.

 

[Charlaquin]

Here. Some folks might find this useful.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Of the words listed in the OP I'm ok with using them all AND the new words suggested. IMO more words the better.

I did have a chuckle about Conan the Invader

 

[AnotherGuy]

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

I'm conflicted on this in that appropriating doesn't exclude appreciation/celebration...and I think it all comes down to respect, which is problematic because, I admit, that can be subjective.

Example 1

[1] If I go to Japan and there is a restaurant where they may celebrate a Cowboy Western themed day within the month and where the food, waiters and decor all denote that - I wouldn't get on my high horse and get all offended by their cultural appropriation.

Example 2

[2] Amost 2 decades ago in the Eurovision contest, the entry for Germany had a band sing a country western song with the band members dressed in cowboy-style gear. This to me was jarring/amusing as the German entry, but there was no offense to be had, just a German band that was celebrating country-style music in their cowboy-like clothing. It was nothing but appreciation.

I think too often, people are looking for offense, instead IMO they should rather be seeing how people of different cultures can appreciate AND celebrate cultures not of their own and that is a beautiful thing.

 

[Zardnaar]

Pretty much. I think the further you get from 1st generation Americans the less it matters. I don't refer to myself or even think of myself as Scottish American. If asked my ethnicity, I'll say American and only when pressed for more would I bring up my Scottish ancestors.

Generally don't even refer to myself as a New Zealander. Usually use kiwi. It's an informal term bit generally if you are born or raised here you're a kiwi (if that's what you identify as it's not mandatory).

Ancestry doesn't matter (post colonial monster tbh). I'm white but don't regard myself as European (never been there).

Of European maybe Polynesian descent (not sure on last part).

 

[Lanefan]

I quoted you because I saw you saying that it was a coastal thing. But it's not.

But also, you not knowing that Paul, his family, and the rest of his castmates had to deny a part of themselves to feel accepted is exactly the issue he brings up now. Because in the 80s that was true, according to him.

Hey, if we Canadians are going to fight about this we gotta do it the Canadian way: on a hockey rink with the gloves off.

 

[Hussar]

Orwellian is a broad concept Hussar. It need not include all the other elements such as thought policing or a tyrannical government. We use the term Orwellian to describe newsrooms engaging in bad journalism all the time for that reason. Orwellian can include any number of features from Orwells dystopia. Altering historical information is one of those features. And I would argue when you update a book from 2014 without letting people know, you are in effect erasing history.

You don't agree with my usage. Fair enough. I haven't persuaded you, which is fine. But I am using the word in a perfectly acceptable way based on the position I am advocating (but if you don't think them doing this rises to Orwellian, that is fair).

No, we really don't. You might. You can do whatever fills your hearts desire. But, the rest of us are over here actually using the term properly and not trying to bias the discussion by using incredibly charged language in order to beat others over the head with whatever point you're trying to make.

"Altering historical information" is not Orwellian in any definition of the word. It just isn't.

And we've seen exactly what the reaction would be if they had announced it. The mistaken point made earlier that was decrying WotC trying to promote themselves when they did nothing of the sort. WotC absolutely cannot win here. There's no upside. They do it quietly, they are accused of "erasing history" and if they announce it, it's endless chestbeating about how they are forcing changes on the fandom.

So, with that in mind, what exactly do you think they could have done? Let people know and watch the incredible storm of outrage and gnashing of teeth? Good grief, they didn't even announce that they weren't going to do Darksun - just talked about how it would be problematic to do - and people YEARS LATER are still trying to scream and holler about it.

Every single time.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Respectfully, this kind of appropriation always affects the immigrant communities more than the people still living in the country. Irish people maybe be amused, annoyed, or offended by the stereotypes, but it doesn't affect them that much because it's happening far away and doesn't make a difference to their daily life. (That's not to say their opinions on it should be ignored.) But for Irish–Americans, it can directly affect how people around them treat them.

As another example, a lot of Japanese–Americans were upset when Scarlett Johansson was cast in Ghost in the Shell (2017) or Katy Perry performed in a kimono, because they have the experience of being "othered" for being different, so when white people turn around and appropriate things from their culture, it stings. But if you ask Japanese people in Japan who don't have that minority experience , a lot of them don't mind or are even happy about foreigners appreciating their culture.

It indeed is a complicated matter. Asian-Americans are indeed pretty damn justified being peeved of casting white actors to Asian roles, as it is the Asian-American actors who are primarily affected by this decision. On cultural appropriation matters I'd rather listen the people from the country which originated the culture. I think American cultural appropriation discussion sometimes goes into weird places. It tends to put non-European cultures into exoticized "do-not-touch-unless-specific-ancestry" boxes like they were museum pieces, leaving the European culture as free-for-all monopolistic default. Cultural exchange happens, and it is pretty messed up if it is allowed only to flow into one direction.