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.

 

[AstroCat]

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.

And this is where I actually selfishly agree, if you can't be true to the expected source material please wait for an era where you can be. And this ties into my other discussion above about controlling the textual content of their licensing partners. They100% do and will exert that control.

 

[Corinnguard]

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

It's the whole Ship of Thesus thing. If you change some of the language in the 2014 books to reflect some changes in RL society, it is the same book? And the shortest answer to this question is, it depends. It depends on how open you are to those changes. It depends on how familiar the books still are to you. And it depends on how long you have been playing D&D.

 

[Rystefn]

It's kind of hilarious to see all this talk about how it's such a good thing that they're moving orcs away from the "always evil" presentation, a thing which they have never actually been, while steadfastly ignoring that 5e is the edition that took a species that had always previously been actual people with moral and ethical personhood and completely stripped that away from them. The "depictions of orcs are always racist, even the different types of orcs that have nothing in common with each other" people never seemed to notice that gnolls were dripping with all the same stereotypes, plus "lazy" into the mix, then started getting a more even-handed depiction as people with a complex culture and background, and then got shunted into the "literally not even people" category. And even with all these changes about not calling certain species savage or violent or whatever... they're still leaving that exactly how it was, and no one cares.

I know. Expecting people to hold internally consistent positions is a recipe for disappointment.

Also, no one gives a naughty word about unicorns and virginity. That's been a dead trope for longer than the average D&D player has been alive, and now only exists either as a joke, or calling out that it's dumb and bad. Hell, by the time D&D was even invented, they were already mostly a cutesy thing for kids' bedtime stories that never even brushed against the whole virginity aspect from older legends. That's been done and dusted for ages, and anyone claiming that it's a significant part of the conception of unicorns in the 21st century can be safely ignored.

 

[Morrus]

Some of these make sense. And then the other half of it is just dumb.

Oops, should I even use the word "dumb" to describe it? /sarcasm

Progressiveness is fine, but you can go so far left you end up going right. Censorship isn't a solution.

Debunking the myth for the umpteenth time in this thread: you are not being censored.

Though it does sound like people want to censor WotC. It’s highly ironic. They make up stories about how WotC is telling them what they’re allowed to say (they’re not) while simultaneously telling WotC what it’s not allowed to say.

There is attempted censorship going on, but not by WotC.

 

[Velderan]

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.

2e had this bit in the habitat/society section of the unicorn entry in the MM:

Lone unicorns occasionally allow themselves to be tamed and ridden by a human or elf maiden of pure heart and good alignment. A unicorn that submits once and is treated kindly will act as the maiden's steed for life, even carrying her beyond the realm of his forest if she so desires. Unicorns make exceptionally loyal mounts and will protect their riders even unto death.

IMO the phrasing is different enough to not be a problem, but YMMV I guess.

 

[occam]

2e had this bit in the habitat/society section of the unicorn entry in the MM:

IMO the phrasing is different enough to not be a problem, but YMMV I guess.

Look up the definition of "maiden". The original implications are certainly still there.

 

[Morrus]

It's the whole Ship of Thesus thing. If you change some of the language in the 2014 books to reflect some changes in RL society, it is the same book? And the shortest answer to this question is, it depends. It depends on how open you are to those changes. It depends on how familiar the books still are to you. And it depends on how long you have been playing D&D.

I don’t imagine they are going to reprint the books. They have new ones coming out next year. They’ve just changed the language on DDB. The 2014 books will go out of print, unchanged.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's kind of hilarious to see all this talk about how it's such a good thing that they're moving orcs away from the "always evil" presentation, a thing which they have never actually been, while steadfastly ignoring that 5e is the edition that took a species that had always previously been actual people with moral and ethical personhood and completely stripped that away from them. The "depictions of orcs are always racist, even the different types of orcs that have nothing in common with each other" people never seemed to notice that gnolls were dripping with all the same stereotypes, plus "lazy" into the mix, then started getting a more even-handed depiction as people with a complex culture and background, and then got shunted into the "literally not even people" category. And even with all these changes about not calling certain species savage or violent or whatever... they're still leaving that exactly how it was, and no one cares.

I know. Expecting people to hold internally consistent positions is a recipe for disappointment.

No, some people definitely do care. I too am angry about how they’ve been handling gnolls in 5e.

 

[Blue Orange]

Look up the definition of "maiden". The original implications are certainly still there.

They may have been trying to be a little evasive, though in that era more to avoid talking about sex.

One thing I haven't seen suggested yet is to make the requirement gender-neutral--male virgins work too. A swaggering fighter may not want to admit it--or he's ace and this is his time to shine!

(Of course you can decide it isn't an issue in your game world, or that expectations don't differ by gender...)

 

[Parmandur]

No, some people definitely do care. I too am angry about how they’ve been handling gnolls in 5e.

I do hope the new MM takes the opportunity to switch that up.