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.

 

[BookTenTiger]

In what way is the word “heist” un-inclusive?

I think it's a joke about the word being inaccurate to the adventure.

 

[SlyFlourish]

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

That's so awesome to hear. Scott Gray was the main writer on that section and he, Teos, and I had lots of conversations about it. We worried that we were either preaching to the choir or pissing off people whose minds were already made up. It's really refreshing to hear people learned from it -- that was our main hope. I learned a lot from it.

 

[BookTenTiger]

It's interesting, like Star Wars, D&D is more a mash-up of preexisting tropes than an original creation. I feel like the process of looking back at those tropes and asking if we want to carry them forwards or not is a healthy process to go through.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You're still defining people based on their status as slaves. Don't get me wrong, I don't have any particular problem referring to people as enslaved instead of slaves, it's been that way for a few years in the academic world, but I imagine we'll use it until such time as it comes to have the same negative association some have for "slaves" and we'll switch to something else. I find the euphemism treadmill to be an interesting example of how language changes over the years.

That is an interesting opinion...

 

[Jahydin]

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

I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

Can you summarize it? I'm curious.

 

[Jahydin]

That's so awesome to hear. Scott Gray was the main writer on that section and he, Teos, and I had lots of conversations about it. We worried that we were either preaching to the choir or pissing off people whose minds were already made up. It's really refreshing to hear people learned from it -- that was our main hope. I learned a lot from it.

Thanks for sharing.

Sometimes its easy to imagine the people making these changes are just outsiders that are "out of touch" with our hobby, especially when the message is delivered like Moses holding the Commandments. Is there a particular podcast or blog where you talk about this topic in greater detail, specifically the "brainstorming" or "self-refection" aspects? As someone that still doesn't see the need to "round the corners off all the furniture", it would certainly be insightful.

 

[Deset Gled]

But are these word changes actually less descriptive, or just differently descriptive?

"Incurious" is no less descriptive than "dim-witted". "Merciless" is not more smoothed-over than "savage". They are all merely relative synonyms to each other, so selecting a different word choice is not making this less descriptive.

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?

 

[JohnF]

It's interesting, like Star Wars, D&D is more a mash-up of preexisting tropes than an original creation. I feel like the process of looking back at those tropes and asking if we want to carry them forwards or not is a healthy process to go through.

Very true! We've come a long way from the italicized "pure" in the B/X unicorn entry...

I hope that fresh new language inspires fresh new ideas, which are always welcomed in a creative hobby.

 

[Jahydin]

Very true! We've come a long way from the italicized "pure" in the B/X unicorn entry...

View attachment 329649
I hope that fresh new language inspires fresh new ideas, which are always welcomed in a creative hobby.

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

 

[ReshiIRE]

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

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.