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.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

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.

That wasn't what the myth was about and was not the reason virginity was exalted in the medieval period.

 

[bedir than]

Recently?

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

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

So WotC products, not something a member here has written and been forced to accept inclusive language

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not everything needs mechanical representation.

I think those things do, personally. It's why I'm glad Level Up exists to fix WotC's flaw.

 

[Parmandur]

I think those things do, personally. It's why I'm glad Level Up exists to fix WotC's flaw.

Eh, Background covers it well enough.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Eh, Background covers it well enough.

Different strokes I suppose.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That wasn't what the myth was about and was not the reason virginity was exalted in the medieval period.

The unicorn's history is such a chaotic tangle of reimagining, misunderstandings, and art interpretation that you'd have to iterate decade by decade what the unicorn meant and where virginity even came into the picture for it on top of the meaning both gained in more modern times. Easier to say there's a whole bunch of baggage and taking the unicorn back to formula isn't just a good idea, it's keeping with the tradition of the creature.

 

[Reynard]

That wasn't what the myth was about and was not the reason virginity was exalted in the medieval period.

Do go on. I am looking forward to an informed and nuanced literary examination of the unicorn myth.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Please, that detail about maidens of pure heart and unicorns can be easily retconected. Who is going to feel unconfortable and why?

Are we going to cancel the 1953 Looney Tunes cartoon "Bully for Bugs" because this is about bullfighting?

And who says when any thing is "cultural apropiation"?

Would be the title "Savage Species" allowed for the current standars? (I love that sourcebook even when it was not 3.5 yet)

And the changes in the languanges shouldn't be forced or dictated by the powers what control the main media because then we may be suffering the "newspeak" from George Orwell's "1984". Don't allow others using the languange to controll. This should be about promoting positive ethical values as the respect for the human dignity and the good sense.

We are free citizens. We shouldn't obey new rules without a right explanation about because these are just and necessary.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

It isn’t the default assumption, it was a specific reference to an earlier post of the person to whom I was responding.

 

[Charlaquin]

Agreed.

That said, is there a way to keep the myth without perpetuating the shaming of women's sexuality?

I would say the way to do that is to have the fiction acknowledge that unicorns’ aversion to non-virgins is bad. Maybe unicorns should not be treated as symbols of goodness and virtue, but instead as haughty, fastidious, and perhaps even vaguely predatory.