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.

 

[Reynard]

I would encourage anyone who has a concern about this to go ahead and re-read (or, I suspect for some, read for the first time) the actual blog post this thread is based on. I think concerns about censorship and nefarious Orwellian conspiracies will start to sound pretty silly in light of what is actually occurring.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I know what you ‘assume’, as does everybody else. You’ve made yourself very very very clear over and over again on many many threads. It’s your primary characteristic—assuming WotC’s nefarious thought patterns.

Don’t you think it’s getting a bit tired?

I suppose so. I will try to refrain from talking about WotC's motives in the future, but it can be difficult when the vast majority of discourse involves them and their current game in some way.

 

[AstroCat]

What a ridiculous thing to say. This view of creativity sounds like a very tiny, narrow, restrictive little box. They can write near infinite combinations of awesome imaginative stuff we can’t even think of right now, but no they chose to use the word ‘invading’ rather than ‘savage’ in their own book, so that’s that.

I mean, this is just… look, I’m
Not going to insult you. But man, this is getting tiresome. I’m sorry you are so triggered by somebody exercising their right to express themselves creatively the way they choose to. It sounds tough. Yoh have my sympathies. But just calm down, eh?

I do honestly believe they have restricted themselves creatively to their detriment, sure infinite is infinite, but in the d&d game space for me wotc's latest releases have not sparked inspiration and excitement for me like they used to. I'm finding the products consistently devoid of a lot of the flavor and direction I enjoy.

A singular and simple little example was the retiring of Volo's Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, those to me were a lot fun but were replaced with media which I feel had worse art, and devoid of a lot of the lore content that was fun to read and find inspiring to use in our games.

I'm not "triggered" in the sense of having a mental break down or any uncontrollable distress, it's not like that, maybe a little bummed here and there like I said before, that the "main game" doesn't appeal to me anymore. But really I'm just engaging on a subject I enjoy as a hobby, and I believe there is a difference. I don't live or die by this, it's just fun game time discussions.

Being accused of being "triggered" is often so dismissive of criticism or opinion sharing, it's a very modern day way of really just telling some to shut up, their opinions don't matter because they are now in some sense hysterical, and all good I don't expect to change game world views, just discuss and listen. I'd love to like "the current cool thing", if I really sincerely found a way to I would but that doesn't always work out, might have to wait for the next "current cool thing" or find it somewhere else, like we currently are.

 

[AstroCat]

I am curious what things you think are out of bounds.

As one example, and just off the top of my head, I think any of the more sword and sorcery type elements, that might not appeal to as wide of the very current audience they are after. I'm not even sure if the earlier adventure paths would be acceptable as made new any more, like Tyranny of Dragons or Out of the Abyss, let alone DarkSun or the GreyHawk campaign settings. Or how about most of the DCC styled adventures, really anything that might be a little to eyebrow raising. I don't think we are gonna see campy but in my opinion fun near naked Conan and Red Sonja types slaying sacrificial cultists to steal treasures of the dark lords of madness any time soon. All good, really, that and all kinds of other content can now be had elsewhere.

And please don't go bonkers on my off the cuff examples, of course you can pick and choose, it's the overall vibe I'm trying to convey. They are not going to risk anything that might even border on pushing the boundaries on any level. This goes for art, and content and even into mechanics, its all just so "safe" and benign now. And look if that is your jam, rock it... I'm not telling anyone their fun is wrong.

 

[Reynard]

As one example, and just off the top of my head, I think any of the more sword and sorcery type elements, that might not appeal to as wide of the very current audience they are after. I'm not even sure if the earlier adventure paths would be acceptable as made new any more, like Tyranny of Dragons or Out of the Abyss, let alone DarkSun or the GreyHawk campaign settings. Or how about most of the DCC styled adventures, really anything that might be a little to eyebrow raising. I don't think we are gonna see campy but in my opinion fun near naked Conan and Red Sonja types slaying sacrificial cultists to steal treasures of the dark lords of madness any time soon. All good, really, that and all kinds of other content can now be had elsewhere.

And please don't go bonkers on my off the cuff examples, of course you can pick and choose, it's the overall vibe I'm trying to convey. They are not going to risk anything that might even border on pushing the boundaries on any level. This goes for art, and content and even into mechanics, it all just so "safe" and benign now. And look if that is your jam, rock it... I'm not telling anyone their fun is wrong.

We have had this discussion in other threads, but it is clear that while WotC has been bewbs averse for quite some time, and are making efforts on cultural sensitivity, they still love their horror tropes. I don't think it is reasonable to say that they never "push boundaries" broadly when they seem to really love body horror in many contexts. It is just that people who think Frazetta IS fantasy (and I am one of them) aren't going to see that style in D&D any more.

 

[Corinnguard]

I would encourage anyone who has a concern about this to go ahead and re-read (or, I suspect for some, read for the first time) the actual blog post this thread is based on. I think concerns about censorship and nefarious Orwellian conspiracies will start to sound pretty silly in light of what is actually occurring.

I read through most of this blog post as there was a lot to go through. A lot of what the author made sense to me, and none of the changes really detracted from what WoTC was trying to say regarding a particular race.

If I was new to 5e and had bought the 2014 books with their changed wordings, I wouldn't see anything amiss. I would be more likely to accept the books as is.

 

[Reynard]

I read through most of this blog post as there was a lot to go through. A lot of what the author made sense to me, and none of the changes really detracted from what WoTC was trying to say regarding a particular race.

If I was new to 5e and had bought the 2014 books with their changed wordings, I wouldn't see anything amiss. I would be more likely to accept the books as is.

My point was that the changes don't fundamentally alter the intent of the original text. No one is being hoodwinked by these changes.

 

[Morrus]

I read through most of this blog post as there was a lot to go through. A lot of what the author made sense to me, and none of the changes really detracted from what WoTC was trying to say regarding a particular race.

If I was new to 5e and had bought the 2014 books with their changed wordings, I wouldn't see anything amiss. I would be more likely to accept the books as is.

Exactly. There’s no fundamental change here. Nobody would even notice if it wasn’t pointed out, and wouldn’t care unless they had some kind of agenda.

 

[Parmandur]

We have had this discussion in other threads, but it is clear that while WotC has been bewbs averse for quite some time, and are making efforts on cultural sensitivity, they still love their horror tropes. I don't think it is reasonable to say that they never "push boundaries" broadly when they seem to really love body horror in many contexts. It is just that people who think Frazetta IS fantasy (and I am one of them) aren't going to see that style in D&D any more.

Thing is, Frazetta style art depresses sales: that's why it's not common in book covers, cardgsmes, etc. anymore. It's not just D&D, or even WotC. Mark Rosewater from the Magic side has actually detailed this in the past: cheesecake means less money, so no cheesecake. Horror, however, sells. Particularly if it is well broadcast, like say the vook with an evil vampire on the cover.

 

[Corinnguard]

My point was that the changes don't fundamentally alter the intent of the original text. No one is being hoodwinked by these changes.

Exactly. The intent is still there. A change in wording isn't likely to change that.