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]

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.

Are you in favor of banning unicorns then? Other than their physical appearance, the whole virgin thing is what unicorns are best known for.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

Fantasy is indeed built on a pretty flawed foundation. That doesn’t necessarily mean those foundational myths have to be “dumped entirely,” but we should be more self-critical about how they’re used. Is the unicorn’s intolerance of anyone but virgin women depicted as a sign of its goodness? That’s maybe not great. Is it presented neutrally with no particular moral judgment? That’s perhaps an improvement, but it’s arguably still perpetuating an inequitable status quo. Do we shift the way we portray unicorns, away from being perfect beacons of goodness and more towards being haughty, fastidious, aloof, perhaps to a negative extreme? That could be a route forward. Or do we embrace the unicorn as symbol of goodness and purity, and let go of the notion of sexual chastity being a necessary element of that?

 

[bedir than]

Are you in favor of banning unicorns then? Other than their physical appearance, the whole virgin thing is what unicorns are best known for.

I associate them more with fey holiness, the ability to heal and evil mages who saw off their horn to use it in dark rituals
None of that needs a female virgin.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Fantasy is indeed built on a pretty flawed foundation. That doesn’t necessarily mean those foundational myths have to be “dumped entirely,” but we should be more self-critical about how they’re used. Is the unicorn’s intolerance of anyone but virgin women depicted as a sign of its goodness? That’s maybe not great. Is it presented neutrally with no particular moral judgment? That’s perhaps an improvement, but it’s arguably still perpetuating an inequitable status quo. Do we shift the way we portray unicorns, away from being perfect beacons of goodness and more towards being haughty, fastidious, aloof, perhaps to a negative extreme? That could be a route forward. Or do we embrace the unicorn as symbol of goodness and purity, and let go of the notion of sexual chastity being a necessary element of that?

I'd rather change the morality than the fact (or myth in this case). Pretty much every time.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

You change the narrative justification for violence against them. Instead of it being ok to kill orcs because they belong to an evil race who are all born evil and can’t be allowed to live, you show what these orcs have done that is so evil as to make violence against them necessary.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

Adept is a bit of an anemic name, to me, and the 5E Monk is a half-caster in practice so I think "Mystic" captures the supernatural angle better. And it has history in the game for the Clas goijg back to the 80's.

I'd prefer brawlers and other natural hand to hand types be Fighters or Barbarians.

 

[Jahydin]

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 and @Crimson Longinus too!
Okay, I guess being more specific would be helpful, I'll try and be careful.

A typical scenario would be a local orc tribe isn't happy a new human settlement appears and begins poking at the defenses and raiding caravans. You're tasked with wiping them out.

Would you still break out the miniatures and battle-mats and play the dungeon crawl as intended or would the fact they could be misunderstood, misrepresented by the humans, or capable of change turn your game into one of diplomacy? If you decide to talk to them and approach the lair and are attacked by archers, do you feel bad about attacking back? You are on their land after all...

Since in my games orcs are inherently evil, these things are non-issues. Eat Cheetos and hack away! So curious where this isn't the case, how others handle it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I associate them more with fey holiness, the ability to heal and evil mages who saw off their horn to use it in dark rituals
None of that needs a female virgin.

So you would prefer that fantasy veneer I mentioned earlier, and remove the cultural and historical underpinnings of its existence? You certainly have company in that, so I won't blame you, but I don't see any need for everyone to be on the same page there. There are other ways to look at stuff like this that don't involve erasure. @Charlaquin mentioned a few.

 

[Charlaquin]

Are you in favor of banning unicorns then? Other than their physical appearance, the whole virgin thing is what unicorns are best known for.

I don’t think banning unicorns, inasmuch as such a thing would even be possible, would accomplish anything. I’m in favor of changing how unicorns are depicted. Either get rid of virginity as a symbol of their goodness and purity, or directly address the fact they’re kind of weird creeps.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don’t think banning unicorns, inasmuch as such a thing would even be possible, would accomplish anything. I’m in favor of changing how unicorns are depicted. Either get rid of virginity as a symbol of their goodness and purity, or directly address the fact they’re kind of weird creeps.

Fair enough. I'll pretty much always go with option 2.