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.

 

[Charlaquin]

I try to divorce it from political terms as much as I can. Without labels, it's a lot easier to empathize.

My point was that those terms, while applicable to politics, are not solely political. I mean, they literally mean magnanimous and prudent, respectively.

 

[AstroCat]

In a way, by not publishing a 5e version of Dark Sun, WotC is doing what some folks want: preserving the historical version of the setting. I think you very well know WotC would update Dark Sun in ways you might disagree with. But they haven't gone back and changed older editions! Instead those older sets are preserved for folks who want to purchase them and experience Dark Sun for themselves.

Mechanically update the setting, leave the creative content in tact. Make that product for that audience. Leave the old settings untouched at the same time, new mechanics v old mechanics, content preserved.

 

[Reef]

In a way, by not publishing a 5e version of Dark Sun, WotC is doing what some folks want: preserving the historical version of the setting. I think you very well know WotC would update Dark Sun in ways you might disagree with. But they haven't gone back and changed older editions! Instead those older sets are preserved for folks who want to purchase them and experience Dark Sun for themselves.

Of course, on these very boards we had a huge thread at one point by people feeling personally attacked by the mere existence of content warning on older content. So it seems even that is a bridge too far for some folks.

 

[Charlaquin]

Someone like Wizkids comes to mind, I would bet they have a very specific licensing agreement with wotc. If they started making some Frank Frazetta styled Conan'esque D&D branded mini's I have a feeling wotc would have a thing or two to say. Although I think that would be a killer minis line!

Wizkids doesn’t publish books, they make miniatures. What does that have to do with WotC’s choice of what language to use in their books?

 

[Umbran]

They need to put out a wider net if they want to actually represent the views of a community then just some loud folks on Twitter...

Mod Note:
This is not meaningfully different from calling folks a "mob". You are trying to lump all disagreement together and dismiss it as meaningless without even attempting to address the content.

I'd already warned someone in the thread about this. You should have listened. You are no longer welcome in this discussion.

 

[AstroCat]

Wizkids doesn’t publish books, they make miniatures. What does that have to do with WotC’s choice of what language to use in their books?

A lot, it's a creative license to create content. This is could be applied to say a movie, tv show, a book using certain wotc assets, etc.. it's all interrelated.

 

[Charlaquin]

A lot, it's a creative license to create content. This is could be applied to say a movie, tv show, a book using certain wotc assets, etc.. it's all interrelated.

So, you read an article about WotC making changes to the language they use in their own books, and then extrapolated a scenario where WotC starts forbidding film and television licensees from using the language they have been choosing to avoid. Does that not strike you as alarmist? Like, what actual evidence are you basing this on?

 

[BookTenTiger]

Mechanically update the setting, leave the creative content in tact. Make that product for that audience. Leave the old settings untouched at the same time, new mechanics v old mechanics, content preserved.

In my view, no matter WotC's current tactics, this looks like a niche product for a small audience, and something that can also be achieved just by buying the 2e books for $9.99 and using a free online conversion. It's just not a realistic thing for a company like WotC to publish.

 

[AstroCat]

So, you read an article about WotC making changes to the language they use in their own books, and then extrapolated a scenario where WotC starts forbidding film and television licensees from using the language they have been choosing to avoid. Does that not strike you as alarmist? Like, what actual evidence are you basing this on?

Licensing agreements across multiple entertainment industries. And this was the extension of that conversation, how and when would wotc impose restrictions on a licensees content beyond open commons agreements.

 

[AstroCat]

In my view, no matter WotC's current tactics, this looks like a niche product for a small audience, and something that can also be achieved just by buying the 2e books for $9.99 and using a free online conversion. It's just not a realistic thing for a company like WotC to publish.

It is what they are currently doing, could have also done if for Spelljammer and Planescape the same way, but didn't.