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.

 

[bedir than]

So those cultural traits don't exist?

True! Species/races are no longer always evil, always good, always profecient in a bow, always thieves, always noble, etc

Cultures are cultures, not races

 

[Micah Sweet]

True! Species/races are no longer always evil, always good, always profecient in a bow, always thieves, always noble, etc

Cultures are cultures, not races

Great! And how does WotC represent those many different cultures, mechanically?

I'll wait.

 

[Epic Meepo]

...casting orcs in the role of indigenous peoples being pushed out of their lands by colonizing humans starts to look even worse.

Why is the default assumption that orcs are being cast in the role of indigenous peoples and humans are colonizers? That seems to be relying on flawed tropes from outdated adventure modules. I would think indigenous Humanoids should be cast in the role of indigenous peoples and colonizing Humanoids should be cast in the role of colonizers. Any particular group of orcs might fall into one, the other, or both of those categories, depending upon its role in the story.

 

[Lanefan]

Ah, OK, now I get it. I couldn’t work out why you were so upset. You’ve confused WotC with some kind of international law enforcement organisation which monitors and controls your speech.

No, when WotC uses or doesn’t use certain language, they are not saying that you are legally obligated to use or not to use those words.

Well, unless one wants to write for them, and-or sell anything through their various outlets, and not have it edited.

They're the big fish in the pond, their rules do carry some weight whether we all like it or not.

 

[bedir than]

Great! And how does WotC represent those many different cultures, mechanically?

I'll wait.

While that isn't the topic of this thread, at all. I'll still answer.
Through Backgrounds, through languages, through tools. Not every mechanic needs to increase combat prowess.

 

[bedir than]

and-or sell anything through their various outlets, and not have it edited.

Do you know of anything on DMs Guild that was edited by WotC?

 

[Parmandur]

Great! And how does WotC represent those many different cultures, mechanically?

I'll wait.

Not everything needs mechanical representation.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

@Corinnguard @Alzrius @QuentinGeorge
Maybe you missed the unique portion of @Cap'n Kobold 's post?:


That does differ from what's been done before.

Start being angry and violent and you'll transform into a big muscled "super-predator" that according to collective internet wisdom represents Afro-Americans?

 

[darjr]

Do you know of anything on DMs Guild that was edited by WotC?

Recently?

I think that Domains of Delight document, maybe a couple others.

Going older there is Dungeon and Dragon magazine from 4e.

 

[Hussar]

Why is the myth so valuable that one should try?

This is the point really.

And, again, this is why WotC absolutely cannot engage with the fandom on this. Because they 100% cannot win here.

WotC developer: Hrm... This unicorn thing. Yeah, that's not a great look. We really don't want to have our monster perpetuating the stereotype that a woman's value is in her virginity and that a woman who is not a virgin is impure and thus without value and cannot get a real man. What should we do?
Other WotC Dev: Well, hrm... maybe... let's make unicorns a sort of nature angel. They're celestial protectors of the forest and nature. Really play into that aspect of unicorns. That way we can drop the icky part but keep unicorns in the game.
Fandom: You're only doing that to make a buck. You wouldn't make any changes unless you thought it was good for your bottom line.
WotC: But... we just outlined exactly why we wanted a change. It's a good thing isn't it?
Fandom: Nope. We refuse to believe anything you say. Doesn't matter. You must only be making changes to cave to the twitter mob and to make more money.
WotC: Uhhh. But, that part of the legend is really sexist and it's not inclusive at all. We really don't want to be telling the young women who are joining the hobby that their only value is if they remain virgins until they manage to tame a man.
Fandom: WotC sucks. 5e sucks. It's boring and bland. THOUGHT POLICING!!!! You are only doing this because of public shaming.
WotC: ....

There's just no upside here.