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.

 

[Irlo]

Telll that to wotc, not me. They are ones changing all their actual books to remove it.

There are motives for editorial changes that have nothing to do with mass upheaval and public shaming.

 

[Lanefan]

Targeting people for violence based on their behavior is different than targeting them based on their bloodline.

I think the point is that sometimes bloodline (or culture) and behavior can be linked; for good and for bad.

Some in-game cultures solve problems with diplomacy, as an ingrained habit. Others, similarly, solve them with violence. Whether one is objectively better than the other is immaterial; what matters is that these cultural traits exist.

 

[bedir than]

Savage sword would be allowed in the new updates.
Savage [race or species] would not.

They haven't eliminated all versions of the words. They've eliminated certain adjectives that cross over from the game to the ways peoples in the real world are described.

Just as hordes haven't been eliminated and barbarian hasn't been eliminated.

Anyone suggesting they have hasn't read the original post, Alphastream's post or the language in the new books

 

[bedir than]

I think the point is that sometimes bloodline (or culture) and behavior can be linked; for good and for bad.

Some in-game cultures solve problems with diplomacy, as an ingrained habit. Others, similarly, solve them with violence. Whether one is objectively better than the other is immaterial; what matters is that these cultural traits exist.

I know you don't play 5e, but this discussion is explicitly about the language changes in 5e that clearly show your statement is untrue in the modern game.

 

[Parmandur]

Well, there still seems to be confusion on that score, so maybe is shouldn't be assumed that everyone knows what WotC's trying to say here.

I mean, the text is pretty clear.

 

[AstroCat]

Seems close, no? Public shaming… hmmm

 

[Lanefan]

I feel like people think the goal is to make it "not okay" to kill orcs, or whatever. I don't think that is the goal at all.

That's certainly how it comes across, for any species that's been declared as PC-playable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm pretty sure that's been the default presentation for decades now.

Does no one remember how, back in 3.X, orcs were listed as being "often chaotic evil," where "often" was defined as "The creature tends toward the given alignment, either by nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40–50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common." The 4E Monster Manual said "A monster’s alignment is not rigid, and exceptions can exist to the general rule." The 5E iteration says "The alignment specified in a monster’s stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster’s alignment to suit the needs of your campaign."

The idea that orcs are an "always evil race" hasn't been supported by the books for a very long time; they've been free-willed creatures choosing the path of rage and violence against others for multiple editions.

True, but it seems never to be clear enough for people to get off their backs about it.

 

[Reynard]

That's certainly how it comes across, for any species that's been declared as PC-playable.

You failed to quote the rest of the paragraph, which should have gone a ways to assuage your concerns. Holding on to the narrative that "they aren't letting me us orcs as bad guys" is just being obstinate at this point.

 

[Lanefan]

Personally I like my band groups to be mixed. Like, not just a few "monstrous humanoids" but some "demi-huamns" too and maybe some intellegent monsters that don't walk on 2 legs. First, this enhances the fantastical nature of the game. And second, it means I get to use varied opponents with cool different abilities.

Same here; but I still want to be able to think that if the party's attitude is "Wipe 'em all out and let their deities sort 'em later" that nobody's going to complain if-when, for example, I were to post that game log here.