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]

Thus becoming the very first writers/publishers in human history to consider which words would be used, and not used, in their publication.

When you do that ten years after publishing, its a different thing. To be fair, they are writing a new book that is replacing all of this, coming out very soon. Why rewrite the old book too?

 

[MGibster]

The people who belong to the culture from which the thing in question is being appropriated. Obviously.

It's not so obvious to me. It wasn't Japanese people who had a problem with Kimono Wednesdays at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts back in 2016.

 

[Parmandur]

When you do that ten years after publishing, its a different thing. To be fair, they are writing a new book that is replacing all of this, coming out very soon. Why rewrite the old book too?

For the benefit of anyone who has the Beyond copies.

 

[Charlaquin]

Have you seen Level Up? You don't think where you grew up would effect you in any way worth representing mechanically? Why wouldn't you? It's just as important as heritage, background, or class.

I have seen level up, and I think its approach to race and culture is great. I just don’t think it’s the only good approach.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

A couple of ways I've been playing with for them:

- Unicorns are idealogues who demand ideological purity. If you don't act and think in the way the unicorn approves of (and this varies from unicorn to unicorn), they will reject and like in the old old stories, kill you.

Really gets to be a problem when the unicorn itself only cares about your conviction and not the nature of those convictions. To (mis)quote an episode of Young Justice: "Yes. It wanted its wielder to be pure. No one said anything about Pure Good."

- Unicorns when 'pure' people in terms of 'innocent', meaning without worldly knowledge. That's because they want to surround themselves with impressionable people who it can mold, teach and/or indoctrinate.

- It's not the unicorns being creeps, it's the people who provide access to unicorns using this access to leverage their own preferences in members of a group.

 

[MGibster]

Unicorns are idealogues who demand ideological purity. If you don't act and think in the way the unicorn approves of (and this varies from unicorn to unicorn), they will reject and like in the old old stories, kill you.

I think that's a great way to handle it. Quite frankly, I'd sure feel uncomfortable discussing with a player how "pure" her character is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have seen level up, and I think its approach to race and culture is great. I just don’t think it’s the only good approach.

I agree with that, but I also think it's better than WotC's approach.

 

[Charlaquin]

Anyone in particular? Does anyone from the culture in question just get to call something appropriation and everyone has to stop? Its a very vague concept.

No, it’s actually a very well-defined concept. It’s the adoption of specific elements (such as ideas, symbols, artifacts, images, art, rituals, icons, music, or styles) of one culture by another culture, without substantive reciprocity, permission, compensation, understanding, or appreciation. Specificity and (the lack of) permission and reciprocity are the most significant elements of how cultural appropriation can be recognized and defined. And it is the culture that these specific elements are being adopted from that determines what permission and reciprocity look like.

 

[Charlaquin]

Wasn't there a cartoon version? Or did I have too much eggnog?

I mean, Muppet Babies was a cartoon. That’s a completely different thing than A Muppet Christmas Carol, and Scrooge McDuck had nothing to do with either of them.

 

[Deset Gled]

Wasn't there a cartoon version? Or did I have too much eggnog?

Scrooge McDuck represented Ebenezer Scrooge in "Mickey's Christmas Carol", a half hour animated version of the tale from 1983. One of my Xmas favorites. As a bit of trivia, John Lasseter was an animator on the project.