I think this is an interesting point, even if I disagree with it. I see WotC's changes in language, and the attempts to change the language of classic literature, as two adjacent but different phenomena.
Fair enough. Appreciate you engaging my point in this way. I do disagree (like I obviously agree that it is different to change Frankenstein than it is to change D&D, but I still consider it in the same category of problem)
In terms of WotC, the fact that they are the current publishers of a game (not a piece of literature) makes a big difference to me. They are already actively making changes (such as errata, or updated rules in Tasha's and Xanathar's), and so it seems that they view 5e as more of a "living document" than an established "historical record" (as you put it). Then again, they are only willing to make so many changes (such as their unwillingness to publish a new Ranger class) without creating a new edition / updated version (the 2024 version). To me, this is analogous to a publisher of a board game updating the language or iconography due to cultural changes. Monopoly changed some of its game pieces in the last ten years; though traditionalists may have been upset, I don't see it as a change to the "historical record" because Hasbro literally can't go back and change Monopoly games published before the shift. If WotC changes the language it uses in upcoming publishings, I really do see that as their right as the people actively creating this version of the game.
I understand this point of view, but would push back on it a bit. I do think there is a big difference between these changes to the 2014 books and if they were to make those changes to the new edition (again I would still find the changes to be bad from a quality standpoint, but I wouldn't find them Orwellian). I don't think the 5E books are living documents. I understand that WOTC probably sees them as such, and I understand there may be things that have to be updated out of necessity (a glaring typo or a serious error that makes running the game impossible). But I feel like this attitude of everything being a living document because we live in the digital age, to be itself a problem. Now maybe it is fairly minor when talking about an RPG (the impact of an RPG on the culture is fairly negligible). But it is part of a larger issue that is more obvious when you see it applied to news websites and other formats (here I think it is seriously a problem because you are literally changing the news, and this happens all the time: the appropriate way to handle errors in news articles is through clear corrections that don't conceal that the original error occurred). I also don't think it is like monopoly because that is a board game. We are talking about three large books with a lot of text. When you start slipping in changes to a book printed in 2014, you are altering the historical record because one of the things people use those books to do is discuss changes to editions over time (including changes around sensitivity). It makes it look like WOTC was more 'enlightened' in 2014 than it really was.
Now if WotC said they were publishing the original text of, say, AD&D, but changed a bunch of language without being upfront about it, I think that would make me uncomfortable. And that may be because they are not the current "caretakers" of AD&D, and those authors don't have agency in the change.
Here it is worth noting we agree. I would expand this to include 3E, 4E, and 5E, but I understand your reasoning here and think it is useful for us to see this is common ground between us. I think it largely boils down to whether we view 5E as a work in progress/living document, or as a record of what WOTC published in 2014. But on AD&D we understand there is something wrong about making alterations and concealing that they occurred.
When it comes to changing the language of classic literature, I'm 100% against it... unless the author is currently living and wants those changes. Books like the Secret Garden should have forwards in order to explain some of the ways that perspectives have changed on race and class, but they shouldn't change the language. This, to me, would be analogous to changing the "historic record."
I largely agree though I consider this a grey area. When I look at how much George Lucas changed Star Wars for example, and how hard it is to find the original cuts of the first trilogy, as a film buff that bothers me (I am fine with him making changes, but a lot what he does feels like he is re-writing history in that it is really hard to watch a version of star wars that matches what audiences saw in 1977. And to be clear here, not a huge star wars fan. I don't care about the lore. But I do care about the preservation of film.
On the other hand, to play Devil's Advocate, the classic Agatha Christie novel "And Then There Were None" was originally named after a minstrel song with a terrible slur in it (look it up on Wikipedia if you're curious). When it was published in the US in 1940, the name was changed, and the rhyme in the book used as a major plot point was changed to "Ten Little Indians." Without this change, I would not have been able to read this book when I was younger. One could argue that some changes are necessary to keep art alive and accessible. But then again, I wouldn't want to see such changes made to language in another classic work like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
I think this is your strongest point and one not to dismiss flippantly at all. First I would say, I am not familiar with Agatha Christie's work so there is a limit to how useful my commentary on Ten Little Indians will be as I don't know the full details of why, when and by whom the change was made (and for what reason exactly----though I certainly can make some intelligent guess as to why!). I do think this is in a different category than what we are talking about above for a few reasons. The big one being it is about international publishing which presents all kinds of situations that are not always ideal for preserving the intent (what is taboo and/or legal in one country for example, isn't necessarily so in another). The other big issue being the word in question (which is particularly taboo in the US: and one I assume both of us would object to being used in our presence in real life). That said, I am aware of the change (not the details just aware that it happened). But I didn't find out what the original title was until I was an adult. I understand why they made the change. And I think there are very good arguments for the change being made. But I also think there is a part of me that really questions the wisdom of it. Again without knowing the exact details, this is a very tentative opinion, but I feel like there is a part of my that feels maybe a book with the original title shouldn't be able to conceal that and make great sales as a result in the US. There is another part of me that wonders if this shields Christie from warranted criticism. And another part of me that feels it shields the reader from the title in a way that allows them to enjoy the book without having to deal with the unfortunate title. I am not commenting on whether it was good or bad, as I don't know the reason for the original title.
So I guess my question is, should keeping a work alive and accessible be more important than the truth of the work? I think on issues of international publication that is thorny. I do get why things are changed. On the other hand, when we change things to suit the taboo of another place, it does distort the original meaning of the work. I watch a lot of Hong Kong Movies and sometimes changes are made simply to make an american audience understand something better. A famous example is in Web of Death (which I highly recommend), changing the words of a master reciting a sutra (I think it was a sutra, it may have been something else as it has been a while since I saw the original version) to the Lords Prayer. That radically alters the meaning. Arguably though, to an audience in the 70s it was more understandable. I am not thrilled about this, but I at least do understand why such a change is often made. But then you have changes made for political reasons. For example, in Police Story 3 there is a line that goes something like "Who are you to dictate, are you George Bush?", that was changed when it was released in the US as Supercop to "Who are you to dictate, are you Fidel Castro?". Now I don't speak the original language, so perhaps the Police Story 3 subtitles were themselves a distortion of what was said (I don't know). But this kind of change is certainly one of the reasons I am wary of adjusting things for a global audience. A famous example of this is the change to the end of Fight Club for its Chinese release (which assures the audience that the characters faced justice for their criminal ways).
I do agree this is more of a gray area. And it isn't new. A Clockwork Orange was famously changed for the US by removing a chapter. Personally, while I think the American version makes for a more impactful story, I would much rather get the version intened by the author and the version that was released (if an author does want to revisit a work, I would prefer they do it like Blatty did with Twinkle, Twinkle Killer Kane (and release a new book with a different title with expanded material in it). Same with City and the Stars by Arthur C Clarke (which was a redo of Against the Fall of Night). To use Blatty again as an example, I recently re-read the exorcist and found it really strange when I came on sections that he had updated (some of it to bring in line with Legion I believe). He made the changes, he is the author. I respect him a lot as a writer. But I also am very conflicted about him making these changes to the book well after it was originally published (I do think it may be more clear that changes were made, but I can' recall at the moment if that was noted on the cover or in an introduction)
I should note, we do agree on Huckleberry Finn, which I think is another place of common ground here (and I imagine we probably agree for the same reasons (i.e. not wanting to distort the work of a great American writer, not wanting to conceal the history, etc).
It's a thorny issue! But my instinct is that WotC's language changes have more to do with keeping their work accessible and inclusive, rather than trying to change any historical record.
I don't doubt that they are doing it for reasons they believe are good. My question is whether this is wise and whether it ends up distorting the historical record and trods into Orwellian territory. Accessible and inclusive are good things. But good reasons can still lead us down a road that isn't well considered in the end. I am personally not particularly at ease with how comfortable our society has become with altering content, taking things down, etc over sensitivity issues. And it isn't because I want people to be insensitive. It is because I think it does damage to art, to creative works and it even damages the consumers by making it harder and harder for them to digest and deal with content from other times, other perspectives, and also handle nuance (i.e. it isn't an endorsement of real life evil to include real life evil in art). Granted, RPGs are pretty small potatoes here. This is more a symptom of a wider problem than anything else (I don't think anything WOTC does is really going to shift the culture that much in either direction). But I think as a gamer to us these things are important so we should still discuss them.
