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.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It's not WotC's job (or anyone's for that matter) to make you comfortable.

If you are uncomfortable, it means you have to actually think about all of these things that make you uncomfortable and figure out why and make informed decisions about how you feel and what you are going to do about them. Rather than just "be comfortable" and be able to ignore it all. Because being able to ignore things is how so many of these problems continue to fester for those who don't have the luxury to ignore them.

Being comfortable just means not having to put in any work to be happy. Which is fine if that's your choice, but no one else has to go out of their way to help you do that.

This is not what he meant by uncomfortable at all

 

[DEFCON 1]

I see a complete edition change as a different beast. If they were just making these changes to their upcoming new core books (and to the versions of same in D&DB) that would be fine.

For the record, I'm not on board with their changes to Volo's and Mordenkainen's texts either. They wrote a new book for that content. Let that stand on its own and stop selling the old ones if you want. You don't need to change the old books as well.

And that's cool. You don't have to be. But WotC also doesn't have to not change what they want because you aren't.

Not that I think you are saying they shouldn't change-- I don't believe you are saying that at all... you're merely stating your opinion of what you'd prefer if given a choice. And ain't nothing wrong with that. Only downside is you then get schmucks like me showing up to argue against you cause I have nothing better to do on a Sunday morning then hang around EN World.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is not what he meant by uncomfortable at all

Then what do you think they meant?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why?

I have a novel I wrote in 2018 that has been available on Kindle since that time. I included some elements that while intended to be progressive and inclusive, are kind of clumsy by today's standards (one can learn a lot in 5 years). Am I not allowed to go back and make changes to it in order to better achieve my initial aims? Should that book remain forever in its initial state no matter how much better it might be if it goes through a "retroactive" cultural sensitivity editorial pass?

Did you label the changed book as a new edition of the work, or is it considered the same book?

Basically, I prefer the truth of what happened to be unobscured in this way. You can make changes going forward, as long as it is clear that they are changes from the original work. What I don't want are changes made with the intention that people forget an earlier version ever existed.

This is just preference, of course. Nothing objective about it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Then that's on those people and their whacked perception. Nothing the rest of us need give two craps about.

Are you saying WotC doesn't have the influence I'm referencing?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I really don't see the issue here. We have written proof in print hiw it was 2014 and now there is another printing with dates and so on. And with updated wording. This is how every other book works too. Some errata here and there. Some modernization of words. It is not a new idea of WotC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And that's cool. You don't have to be. But WotC also doesn't have to not change what they want because you aren't.

Not that I think you are saying they shouldn't change-- I don't believe you are saying that at all... you're merely stating your opinion of what you'd prefer if given a choice. And ain't nothing wrong with that. Only downside is you then get schmucks like me showing up to argue against you cause I have nothing better to do on a Sunday morning then hang around EN World.

Neither do I...neither do I. Family's still asleep.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I think this conversation is interesting because there seem to be two major perspectives. Please note I'm trying my best to make this observations without judgment, but in the hope that it'll help the discussion.

One perspective is that inclusion is a priority, and so changes towards inclusion are good (however you want to define that term). For this perspective, it is acceptable to change traditions in order to be inclusive towards a broader variety of people.

One perspective is that tradition is a priority, and so changes away from tradition are bad (however you want to define that term). For this perspective, though inclusion may also be a high priority, it does not automatically make changes to tradition acceptable or desired.

...

My perspective aligns with the first, personally. But I think discussions like the unicorn, orcs, or even the language we use really does show that folks are coming to this conversation with different perspectives. And WotC's choices may make some people feel like their own perspective is being challenged, or priorities are being threatened. That doesn't mean anyone needs to cater to others' perspectives, but it could help if we recognize that people have different priorities when it comes to inclusion and tradition.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Then what do you think they meant?

he is uncomfortable with it because it seems like they are censoring the historical record, not because the changes force him to examine himself. Just look up esssts and articles on recent changes to old novels. A lot of people are uncomfortable with such changes, not because they endorse the old language, but because they find it Orwellian to update creative works in this way. It is five if you disagree that is Orwellian (people are going to disagree on this) but I think it is unfair to characterize his discomfort with it the way you did

 

[Reynard]

Did you label the changed book as a new edition of the work, or is it considered the same book?

Basically, I prefer the truth of what happened to be unobscured in this way. You can make changes going forward, as long as it is clear that they are changes from the original work. What I don't want are changes made with the intention that people forget an earlier version ever existed.

This is just preference, of course. Nothing objective about it.

Although I don't think I am personally under any obligation to do such a thing, I get your meaning.

After all, one of my answers to people worried about changes to D&D (or whatever) is to just keep playing what ytou are playing. I suppose that if a company makes an effort to retroactively change pervious version that could be difficult (especially in a digital world; no one is going to sneak into your house and scribble out "savage" from your PHB).

So, yeah, i kind of get it: preserving a copy as it originally appeared does have some value.