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.

 

[Scribe]

There are ways to do so, but Level Up did it under the OGL originally, not the CC BY.

Intermixing licenses or quoted with original work can be difficult, and unlike Morrus, my ability to afford lawyers is different.

Ah, thats a shame in that case. I am counting on the 5.5 SRD being thrown into CC as well and just rewriting all the stuff I dont like.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Couldn't you just find a fan work that does this, or do this yourself? Clearly, WotC isn't interested in bringing old settings back unless they can market them to more audiences than before. Aren't you the one always telling other people they shouldn't rely on WotC for their D&D content?

Please read the post you responded to (unless I make it myself, which is fine). I'd love to have some mechanics to work from and tinker with, but I'm good with making it myself otherwise.

 

[Velderan]

Agree, never gonna happen. They have positioned themselves in a way that they can not remove themselves from. Anything even remotely "risky" in the slightest way is a no go for them. Taking creative chances of any kind is off the table for wotc, for the very long foreseeable future.

They haven't done anything to position themselves that way. They released a book just last year that had images that enough people found too close for comfort to a racist part of history. There's no way they're having anything to do with a setting that slavery is a pretty heavy theme in, whether they release it themselves or license it out. That's just good business sense when you see what a large portion of your audience expects out of you.

Be happy they have the old material on DM's Guild unedited with an easily ignored disclaimer.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It needs to be in DMGuild or whatever first, otherwise its copyright infringement.

If you're selling it, yes.

 

[AstroCat]

They haven't done anything to position themselves that way. They released a book just last year that had images that enough people found too close for comfort to a racist part of history. There's no way they're having anything to do with a setting that slavery is a pretty heavy theme in, whether they release it themselves or license it out. That's just good business sense when you see what a large portion of your audience expects out of you.

Be happy they have the old material on DM's Guild unedited with an easily ignored disclaimer.

Actually they have, the book art in question was a editorial error/overlook and as you said they caught huge grief because of it from a section of their audience. They can't take those risks, it's not allowed and the DS is way too over the top for the position wotc has taken. In another era, the next one, who knows maybe those kinds of settings, might be more acceptable to the current d&d gaming audience.

 

[Dire Bare]

Are you in favor of banning unicorns then? Other than their physical appearance, the whole virgin thing is what unicorns are best known for.

Oh please. I call BS on your whole premise and false question.

We've had unicorns unconcerned with a women's sexual status in D&D since 3rd Edition at least, probably 2nd Edition, and they have worked just fine in the game. I don't remember anyone rising up during the Edition Wars crying, "But who will think of the unicorns? They just aren't the same if non-virgins can ride them!" Your complaint is decades past due.

The original creature in the game was more true to the myth. The myth was problematic. WotC left it behind a long time ago, and good riddance. I don't know why this is so hard for some folks.

Besides, if for some reason you feel virginity-detector unicorns are necessary in your game, pretty easy to add that awful, sexist trope back into your games.

 

[Velderan]

They can’t really stop people from publishing whatever they want under Creative Commons. Preventing licensees from publishing D&D content they consider problematic was literally their expressed reason for trying to pull the whole OGL 2.0 fiasco, and when that blew up in their faces, they explicitly said that with the rules now licensed under CC they would have to rely on the community to help keep D&D inclusive.

Obviously non-RPG content is a different story, and involves different licenses. But that’s not what the article we’re discussing is about.

Yep, in this case I'm referring to people saying "just license Dark Sun out if you don't want to deal with it". Since Dark Sun isn't an OGL or CC thing, they'd have to consciously make the decision to allow someone to use their IP like they did with Weis and Hickman releasing the current Dragonlance trilogy. Not sure if you've read them, but there's a few spots where you can clearly see things portrayed in a way that's more in line with the current inclusivity guidelines instead of how they were traditionally portrayed in previous books by Weis and Hickman.

 

[Velderan]

Actually they have, the book art in question was a editorial error/overlook and as you said they caught huge grief because of it from a section of their audience. They can't take those risks, it's not allowed and the DS is way too over the top for the position wotc has taken. In another era, the next one, who knows maybe those kinds of settings, might be more acceptable to the current d&d gaming audience.

So basically you're saying by listening to their audience, they've positioned themselves to where they can't make stuff the majority of their audience wouldn't want to see made? I mean WotC is no stranger to shooting themselves in the foot with some of their decision making, but listening to your audience is just basic business.

 

[Parmandur]

Yep, in this case I'm referring to people saying "just license Dark Sun out if you don't want to deal with it". Since Dark Sun isn't an OGL or CC thing, they'd have to consciously make the decision to allow someone to use their IP like they did with Weis and Hickman releasing the current Dragonlance trilogy. Not sure if you've read them, but there's a few spots where you can clearly see things portrayed in a way that's more in line with the current inclusivity guidelines instead of how they were traditionally portrayed in previous books by Weis and Hickman.

I mean, not hard to make a rip-off Dark Sun alike. Question is...will it sell?

 

[AstroCat]

So basically you're saying by listening to their audience, they've positioned themselves to where they can't make stuff the majority of their audience wouldn't want to see made? I mean WotC is no stranger to shooting themselves in the foot with some of their decision making, but listening to your audience is just basic business.

I'm saying they can't take any risks creatively, even if they might actually pay off. They are extraordinarily risk adverse regardless of what sections of the audience might or might not want.