More inclusivity changes a coming..

[animewatcha]

No more 'fat' 'slave' or 'insane'. These 3 are just a few that are outlined.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e8Pq_WlAgk

These are gonna be some interesting changes to lore in places like Far Realms.

-edit- found a link to what is being referenced in the video. https://alphastream.org/index.php/2023/11/17/what-we-can-learn-from-wotcs-core-book-sensitivity-and-inclusivity-changes/

[Psyren]

Thanks for the link! The specific examples (e.g. replacing "savage orcs" with "merciless hordes" and removing binary references to "male or female characters" make sense to me.

[tKUUNK]

it IS an interesting speculation / analysis of WotC's social posture. But it might be a topic better off discussed on Reddit or something. it's is a more socio-political / philosophical topic than we tend to discuss on this forum. Now, if it affects the martial-caster divide (real or perceived), ASI optimization, or subclass choices, that's another matter!!! :smallbiggrin:

[P. G. Macer]

This has been news outside this forum for a few days now, and for everyone besides the usual crowd looking to find fault in 5e wherever they can, it’s honestly not that huge of a deal.

[Atranen]

Agree it is better discussed elsewhere. The one comment I have is, isn't it a bit odd that we are only hearing about this from a third party? Good work by alphastream for compiling them.

[Rynjin]

These changes range from mostly good (more inclusive gender stuff) to incredibly dumb (we're not allowed to have ki on a Monk? The word "civilization" is taboo now?) and most of the stuff in-between ("savage" to "brutal" is a largely meaningless change) is a mixed bag.

The slavery one is something I thought was pretty dumb the way Paizo handled it, and is even dumber the way Wizards is handling it. In Pathfinder's case it was more a missed opportunity; most countries on Golarion had ALREADY outlawed slavery, and it just kinda disappeared from the last holdout (Cheliax) between editions. An Adventure Path detailing the exploits of the Bellflowers finally managing to abolish slavery in Cheliax for good would have been nice.

In Wizards' case, it looks like they are not just removing slavery from the setting, but pretending it never existed at all, looks like? Given the change of "slave" to "servant" is a huuuuge change in implications.

[Kane0]

Yeah the slavery one was a headscratcher for me too.

[Psyren]

The word "civilization" is taboo now?

I think their issue with the word "civilization" in the way it was previously used in the 2014 DMG implies that only euro-centric towns, villages and cities count as "civilized" while, say, tribal or nomadic cultures are implied to not be, and therefore less safe, less organized, less capable, less meaningful etc.


The one comment I have is, isn't it a bit odd that we are only hearing about this from a third party?

Ideally yes, but... well, if they're, say, embarrassed by the prior language or otherwise looking to avoid a spectacle, shining a light on these kinds of changes seems like it might run counter to that goal. At the end of the day, detailed errata listings for things that aren't even rules are a courtesy.

[TaiLiu]

I hope the disappearing references to madness or insanity augur better character writing. In my experience, fantasy references to psychosis simply cover up lazy writing.

Why did the wizard do it? Well, they were mad. Mad, I tell you! So they do bad things and are also super violent and have no coherent goals and you can’t persuade them of anything.

I also hope it won’t mean that there won’t be psychotic fantasy characters anymore. When used right, NPCs with hallucinations and delusions can make interesting characters for PCs to ally with or come into conflict against.

[Rynjin]

I think their issue with the word "civilization" in the way it was previously used in the 2014 DMG implies that only euro-centric towns, villages and cities count as "civilized" while, say, tribal or nomadic cultures are implied to not be, and therefore less safe, less organized, less capable, less meaningful etc.

Sounds like they should be more concerned with using the word properly then instead of not using it at all. Plenty of tribal civilizations (eg. the Mongols) are/were referred to as such.

[Rukelnikov]

How is the MCU doing these days?

[Amnestic]

The slavery one isn't a great change in my eyes but the rest of it seems like a whole lot of nothing to me. No wonder it sat under the radar for months.

[Mastikator]

I have some thoughts regarding the alphastream article.

Savagery and Civilization
"Civilized" is a complicated word because it has many connotations that often bleed into each other. Civilized might mean technologically advanced, or well organized, or morally advanced. But it's not hard to imagine a technologically advanced and morally poor society. Next to a technologically poor and highly moral society. Depending on which definition of "civilized" either might be considered the more civilized one.

Changing from "civilized folk" to just "folk" is IMO not really a big improvement, it removed the ambiguity by removing information. IMO using more specific words is the right way forward. If they mean technologically or magically advanced then they should say so. It's not problematic to say that one society is more technologically or magically advanced than another.

The savage/brutal swap seems like a pallet swap, IMO nothing has changed. Saying orcs are savage is no different than saying orcs are brutal. However there are some improvements made here, a "barbarian horde" is not very specific, a barbarian horde might just be a large number of nomads, an invading horde are attackers invading settled lands.

Savage orcs vs ruthless bandits. What is the difference between orc bandits and elf bandits? I think this is an improvement, it opens up to using "classically good" races to banditry. One thing I've often felt lacking in D&D is uncivilized savage "good races" like humans, elves, dwarves, halflings.

Now comes the part I don't like.

"When they establish lairs, they settle near the rural edges of civilized lands"
vs
"When they establish lairs, they settle near the rural edges of settled lands"

Um what, when the ogres establish lairs they settle. That makes their lairs settled lands. Will ogres establish lairs near the rural edges of ogre lairs? No, that's not what they mean. What they mean is that ogres establish lairs near the rural edges of smaller races that they can prey on. If they don't want to use the word "civilized" then it's quite easy to avoid it because ogres don't settle near "civilization" anyway. What they do is establish lairs near rural agricultural societies so they can eat the poorly defended people and cattle.

Bioessentialism
Changing "breeding" to "recruiting and training" is a mistake, unless they mean that quaggoths are no longer domesticated by the drow. There is a very big difference between training and domestication. Dogs are domesticated, wolves can be trained.
If the drow capture young quaggoths and train them then the new wording is correct.
If the drow breed quaggoths to promote characteristics they prefer then they are domesticating them. Now I can understand that it is problematic to try to domesticate humanoids, but honestly that doesn't make D&D problematic it just reinforces the theme that lolthsworn drow society is evil.

Racial Purity, Comparisons of Lesser
I think it's fair to not take the beholder's side when describing the beholder's racist views. You could even take it a step further and just say "beholders are fanatical racists".

Changing "dark elves" to "drow" is an improvement. They are drow. We don't call sea elves "blue elves" either.

Low Intelligence as a Species
Calling races that are less intelligent than humans "incurious" is worse than calling them "dim witted". Humans are the average in the setting, 10/11 is the average ability score for humans and the default average of D&D as a game. We call elves and dwarves "humanoid", we don't call humans "elfoid".
I don't see why it's problematic to say that hill giants live much like animals, with poor adaption and coping skills.

Changing troglodytes from "savage, degenerate" to "violent, ever hungry" is an improvement. Because I wonder, degenerate from what? Was there ever a highly advanced and powerful troglodyte society? No? Then they're not degenerate, they just suck.

"Kuo-toa were simple creatures" makes it seem like they're animals. If they are animals and not humanoids then classify them as animals with language. Honestly I don't know what to do with these fish folk. Do we even need them? Just replace them with the sahuagin. How many different kinds of fish folk do we really need?

Gender
I think this is an improvement. Gender should be a free-text field, write whatever gender you want. Write "male", write "man", write "boy", write "short king" for all I care. Write "androgynous looking elf" if that's what you want.

Fat
I kinda sorta agree with this one. If all hill giants have high body to fat ratio then are they really fat? We don't consider seals or whales as "fat". Are belugas fatter than dolphins? This comparison doesn't make much sense. So it doesn't make sense to compare hill giant fat/body ratio to human fat/body ratio either.

Slavery
This change I don't like. This is basically whitewashing slavery with euphemisms. A servant and a slave are not the same thing. Unless they mean to remove slavery from D&D then they should not change this term. Laborer and slave is even more different, arguably. Is a stonemason not a laborer? Is a paid stonemason member of a guild a slave? Bad change.

Dark
I kinda like this change. Calling the underdark "dark" is redundant, yeah there's no sun underground, DUH. It's also a dangerous place. My basement is pretty dark when the lights are out, doesn't make it dangerous. "Vile ritual" I think is more descriptive and colorful than "dark ritual" IMO.

Overall
I think some changes are for the better, and by better I mean more precise or more open in a good way, with a few exceptions. Some changes however mean a change in lore, I think it's OK to change the lore as I view the lore as nothing more than suggestions anyway. I know some view the book lore as the one and only truth, for them change in lore is more dramatic and controversial.
However if the lore doesn't change while the "slave/servant/laborer" terminology changes then I think that is an ethical problem they have created. It is as the kids problematic to call slaves "servants".

[LudicSavant]

Now comes the part I don't like.

"When they establish lairs, they settle near the rural edges of civilized lands"
vs
"When they establish lairs, they settle near the rural edges of settled lands"

Um what, when the ogres establish lairs they settle. That makes their lairs settled lands.

"Ah, those are unsettled lands for the taking! Nevermind all the people already living there..."

[Unoriginal]

Removing slavery as a concept is plain stupid.

Yes, slavery is an horrible thing, but so is a dragon attacking a town to steal riches and incidentally eating people just because they were there at the wrong time.

If their goal is just to go "well not all drow in every setting do slavery, so it's not fair if their entry mentions it", then sure, but then stop writing anything in that entry because not all X ever do Y if we go at the scale of the multiverse.

Not all Beholders are xenophobic in every setting, not all Hill Giants are hungry in every setting, not all Devas are good aligned Celestial in every setting.

So yeah, typical not-thinking-it-through-ism.

[Boci]

Fat
I kinda sorta agree with this one. If all hill giants have high body to fat ratio then are they really fat? We don't consider seals or whales as "fat". Are belugas fatter than dolphins? This comparison doesn't make much sense. So it doesn't make sense to compare hill giant fat/body ratio to human fat/body ratio either.

Except the context was "A hill giant tribe's chief is usually the tallest and fattest giant". They were explicitly comparing one specific hill giant to other hill giants.

[Psyren]

How is the MCU doing these days?

It's still the most lucrative and critically acclaimed superhero film franchise. Wrong thread?


Sounds like they should be more concerned with using the word properly then instead of not using it at all. Plenty of tribal civilizations (eg. the Mongols) are/were referred to as such.

I dont disagree, but again, the 2014 DMG did contain that contrast/implication. Whenever it used "civilization" it wasn't referring to tribes the way you just highlighted, it was referring to "villages, towns, and cities" in the western mold.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't really care one way or the other about the actual content of the changes.

I'm mildly annoyed by the way they did it, though. Unmarked, unannounced edits to the digital side (and presumably the subsequent printings) just means that things will be out of sync. And while these changes are inconsequential, it opens the door to making substantive changes the same route. Which is a good way to cause unnecessary friction at the table, when people are reading the same words... except they're different words. Publishing errata documents, even if they're not a 1:1 diff of the changes closes the loop.

[Amechra]

"Ah, those are unsettled lands for the taking! Nevermind all the people already living there..."

Yeah, pretty much.

The sense I get is that a lot of these changes were made by people whose hearts are in the right place but who don't have a solid grasp of the nuances of why these things should be avoided. It also feels a bit like they're sprucing up the paint job on their house while fervently praying that no-one notices the rotten support pillars, so...

[Atranen]

I don't really care one way or the other about the actual content of the changes.

I'm mildly annoyed by the way they did it, though. Unmarked, unannounced edits to the digital side (and presumably the subsequent printings) just means that things will be out of sync. And while these changes are inconsequential, it opens the door to making substantive changes the same route. Which is a good way to cause unnecessary friction at the table, when people are reading the same words... except they're different words. Publishing errata documents, even if they're not a 1:1 diff of the changes closes the loop.

Yeah. All the more reason to only buy physical, only buy PDFs, only buy things that you have permanent access to and control over.

[Bohandas]

It seems lime they're going in two different directions with the villains. They're changing orcs and drow to no longer be villains just because, but it sounds like they're also not wanting to have villains doing any really evil stuff. So if they can't do any evil stuff and they can't be villains just because, are they just not gonna have any villains anymore? Or do they want the PCs to be like the comics version of The Punisher and crack people's heads open for littering and jaywalking? Or what?


Yeah. All the more reason to only buy physical, only buy PDFs, only buy things that you have permanent access to and control over.

Agreed. I won't buy anything where people can meddle with it after it's been purchased or that tries to phone home to its makers or does anything creepy like that.

[Psyren]

While I personally prefer digital (I came to D&D through the medium of buggy videogames like Baldurs Gate and NWN so I have no issue with convenient patching), I have no issues with static PDFs and printed physical remaining available for those who prefer that.

[Lalliman]

Remember people, when you create a fictional world, you have a moral imperative to create a world better than our own. If you let real-world problems exist in your fictional world, that means you want those things to exist in real life, because why else would you include them? It’s not like there’s any value in telling stories about conflict or tragedy.
I don't have to mark this as sarcasm, right? Right??

[Kane0]

(I came to D&D through the medium of buggy videogames like Baldurs Gate and NWN so I have no issue with convenient patching)

I dont remember NWN being that buggy.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Remember people, when you create a fictional world, you have a moral imperative to create a world better than our own. If you let real-world problems exist in your fictional world, that means you want those things to exist in real life, because why else would you include them? It’s not like there’s any value in telling stories about conflict or tragedy.
I don't have to mark this as sarcasm, right? Right??

This is a post parody world, so since I was on mobile and didn't see the white text...I was worried it wasn't sarcasm.

[Bohandas]

I'm fatter than Homer Simpson and even I think removing refrences to weight is pointless and stupid.

[Kane0]

I'm fatter than Homer Simpson and even I think removing refrences to weight is pointless and stupid.

"Oh no, not again—another bony adventurer seeking to plunder my riches. I'm not interested in your meagre frame. Get some meat on you! I want beefy! Blubbery! Plump! Porcine! Stop being a slave to public perception and treat yourself. Pies, meat, beer, anything, but lots of it! Eat yourself large, and you'll be welcome here!"

-Demon Door, Fable (2004)

[Psyren]

Remember people, when you create a fictional world, you have a moral imperative to create a world better than our own. If you let real-world problems exist in your fictional world, that means you want those things to exist in real life, because why else would you include them? It’s not like there’s any value in telling stories about conflict or tragedy.
I don't have to mark this as sarcasm, right? Right??

Sarcasm aside, this is a strawman. Nobody is saying D&D worlds have to be better than ours.


I dont remember NWN being that buggy.

None of them were serious. (NWN2 however...)

[Bohandas]

Sarcasm aside, this is a strawman. Nobody is saying D&D worlds have to be better than ours.

Well our world has slavery and religious intolerance and genocide and hatred and misogyny and homophobia and sexual violence - especially during the time periods that D&D is stylized on - so it kind of seems like they are.

[Sigreid]

It doesn't matter at all. People are unlikely to change their buy/no buy position based on this waffle and no outside your table is going to determine what words you use in your games. That said, seems to me they're cutting off a lot of fantasy adventure. Just one example, there have to be groups with slaves for you to, well, rescue slaves.

[Bohandas]

That said, seems to me they're cutting off a lot of fantasy adventure. Just one example, there have to be groups with slaves for you to, well, rescue slaves.

That's what I'm trying to say. The published adventures are all going to be rather boring and pointless if the authors aren't allowed to have the villians do anything worse than stealing 40 cakes.

[Psyren]

It doesn't matter at all. People are unlikely to change their buy/no buy position based on this waffle and no outside your table is going to determine what words you use in your games. That said, seems to me they're cutting off a lot of fantasy adventure. Just one example, there have to be groups with slaves for you to, well, rescue slaves.

...Where does it say they're eliminating all mention of slavery everywhere? This article is about the core books specifically. Moreover, they still kept in "enslaved creatures."

Off the top of my head, Mindflayer history is built on them having slaves and thralls. Does the article say anything about that changing?


Well our world has slavery and religious intolerance and genocide and hatred and misogyny and homophobia and sexual violence - especially during the time periods that D&D is stylized on - so it kind of seems like they are.

I wasn't aware that D&D was purely historical fiction; I thought it was a fantasy pastiche with many elements of modern society.

[Person_Man]

Speaking as an older Gen X’er with young kids, I’m very much in favor of this. Looking back at how kids treated each other when I was growing up is painful. Racism, ethnocentrism, homophobia, and bullying (over basically any perceived difference) were very very common and painful. I don’t want my kids to have to use that kind of language or believe that its acceptable or normal. I want our games to be as inclusive as possible - and as society and language continue to change they’ll need to be updated to reflect them.

Having said that - I don’t like it when older works of literature are rewritten without the authors’ approval. High school or college kids should be able to read Huck Finn or whatever in the original, be shocked by the language and history - and have a conversation about what was bad about it and why.

For me, there’s a distinction between history and modern fantasy. And if you want your homebrew campaign to be more historical - knock yourself out. But lets not insist that the 11 year olds who pick up a D&D book for the first time need to read about Always Chaotic Evil Dark Elves and their society built on slavery, torture, and spider worship.

[GooeyChewie]

...Where does it say they're eliminating all mention of slavery everywhere? This article is about the core books specifically. Moreover, they still kept in "enslaved creatures."

Off the top of my head, Mindflayer history is built on them having slaves and thralls. Does the article say anything about that changing?

If they're removing it from the core books, I'd say it's a fair bet they aren't going to have it in future books at all, even if they don't retroactively remove it from existing books. That said, I really don't have a problem with WotC not having slavery in their books. There are plenty of ways for villains to be evil without that particular evil.

[Unoriginal]

I don’t want my kids to have to use that kind of language or believe that its acceptable or normal.

[...]

But lets not insist that the 11 year olds who pick up a D&D book for the first time need to read about Always Chaotic Evil Dark Elves and their society built on slavery, torture, and spider worship.

I'm not sure what about the way D&D presented the drow society ever made it seem acceptable or normal.

Like, drow society was always a bad place to be in regardless of which strata you were in, except for the very top of the pyramid that's permanently labelled as "Lolth's seat". That's the point.

Or are you saying that 11yo kids shouldn't be talking about slavery and torture at all and it's not acceptable if they do?


That said, I really don't have a problem with WotC not having slavery in their books. There are plenty of ways for villains to be evil without that particular evil.

Why are those other ways acceptable to have in the books when slavery isn't?

[Bohandas]

If they're removing it from the core books, I'd say it's a fair bet they aren't going to have it in future books at all, even if they don't retroactively remove it from existing books. That said, I really don't have a problem with WotC not having slavery in their books. There are plenty of ways for villains to be evil without that particular evil.

The problem is that a lot of the villains don't feel all that villainous to begin with, they don't do much and the things they do are largely done offscreen. Restricting that further makes the problem worse, and this is iespecially true in the case of slavery as that's something that's ongoing, visible, and that can be influenced without high level magic.

Killing people for petty reasons is over in a second, and even if the villain puts their victims' heads on pikes or something there's not really anything the characters can do about it without access to 5th level spells. And it's also worth noting that that same spell can't even be repurposed for villainy; D&D's resurrection system seems to ba tailor made to prevent the villain from being able to kill someone over and over again like Bevel Lemelisk.

Maiming people is a little more interactive, but is unlikely to get by the same censors that didn't want slavery mentioned. The same goes for torture

[Unoriginal]

Also slavery (or slavery-with-a-different-hat) is inherent to any oppressive, freedom-removing government.

Be they prisoners, political opponents, a group declared as less than by the authority, or anyone else, if there's a government that believes it can take people's freedoms and treat people like things, you'll find people who are forced to work against their will.

[Catullus64]

Read the Alphastream article and went through the changes. Much of it seems inconsequential enough that it's pretty hard to be bothered by, but one thing stuck out to me as misguided, and made me sour on much of the endeavor: the changes to the language around the barbarian class.

To be quite frank, the Barbarian class is pretty much inextricable from the problematic tropes and attitudes (about 'civilized' or 'uncivilized' people) that the changes seem designed to revise. It's a little emblematic of what bothers me about a lot of these changes, that they mostly aim to put a culturally sensitive coat of paint on things without meaningfully changing the underlying substance. I don't blame the sensitivity readers for doing their job, but I find the end result to be nothing more than sanding off the texture of thematically rich but problematic material, replacing it not with equally thematically rich material to suit changing social mores, but with a bland version of the old stuff.

The substance of quite a lot of D&D is rooted in ugly real-world stuff, and I don't think anyone disputes that. You can accept that tropes with harmful roots can still be the stuff of harmless fun and stand by them, or you can reject them and try to make something radically new to fit a more modern ethos, but this middle-of-the-road nonsense grates on me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't blame the sensitivity readers for doing their job, but I find the end result to be nothing more than sanding off the texture of thematically rich but problematic material, replacing it not with equally thematically rich material to suit changing social mores, but with a bland version of the old stuff.

I blame anyone who hires sensitivity readers. Because that second sentence? That's the inevitable result. And really, it's the theme of Tasha's+ WotC. It's the Saturday Breakfast Cereal of content--bland, but super sugary (lots of power) to disguise that fact. Basically, they wouldn't know good interesting lore if it bit them, and it shows. That, or they're too afraid of possibly provoking a Twitter (no, I'm not calling it X) storm from a bunch of people who weren't really in the target audience but know how to be really loud.

[Person_Man]

I'm not sure what about the way D&D presented the drow society ever made it seem acceptable or normal.

Like, drow society was always a bad place to be in regardless of which strata you were in, except for the very top of the pyramid that's permanently labelled as "Lolth's seat". That's the point.

Or are you saying that 11yo kids shouldn't be talking about slavery and torture at all and it's not acceptable if they do?

Well, for starters I don’t think its a good idea to have any intelligent species be “always” any alignment. (Except perhaps literal demons, angels, etc.). Because if a race is Always Evil, it would probably be a Good act to murder all of the Drow children in a village and burn it to the ground, because they had no free will and they were going to do nothing but Evil. Their Evil choices were because of their genetics, not what society taught them or the choices they made.

Then, consider the idea that the main way you can tell the difference between Good elves and Evil elves is the color of their skin. And it is the “Dark” elves that are “Always Evil.”

I could go on and on about this at great length, but doing so would require discussions of slavery and race in the real world (which I think is against forum rules) and how problematic it is to present it the way D&D has presented it in the past to kids.

[Psyren]

If they're removing it from the core books, I'd say it's a fair bet they aren't going to have it in future books at all, even if they don't retroactively remove it from existing books. That said, I really don't have a problem with WotC not having slavery in their books. There are plenty of ways for villains to be evil without that particular evil.

Again though, the article itself shows that the concept is not being totally excised from core. The language change from "slaves" to "enslaved creatures" seems intentional - one label being a constant state, the other being a point-in-time act of oppression. And that appears to be coupled with a general reduction in the term's use where it isn't actually needed.


I'm not sure what about the way D&D presented the drow society ever made it seem acceptable or normal.

Like, drow society was always a bad place to be in regardless of which strata you were in, except for the very top of the pyramid that's permanently labelled as "Lolth's seat". That's the point.

Or are you saying that 11yo kids shouldn't be talking about slavery and torture at all and it's not acceptable if they do?

Drow might not be portrayed as acceptable and normal, but they're undeniably portrayed as cool. They didn't get as popular as they are by accident. And so, simply saying "hey, you shouldn't aspire to be like these elves, they're bad - but also look how cool they are, you can totally be one!" rings a bit hollow.

[Witty Username]

These changes range from mostly good (more inclusive gender stuff) to incredibly dumb (we're not allowed to have ki on a Monk? The word "civilization" is taboo now?) and most of the stuff in-between ("savage" to "brutal" is a largely meaningless change) is a mixed bag.

The slavery one is something I thought was pretty dumb the way Paizo handled it, and is even dumber the way Wizards is handling it. In Pathfinder's case it was more a missed opportunity; most countries on Golarion had ALREADY outlawed slavery, and it just kinda disappeared from the last holdout (Cheliax) between editions. An Adventure Path detailing the exploits of the Bellflowers finally managing to abolish slavery in Cheliax for good would have been nice.

In Wizards' case, it looks like they are not just removing slavery from the setting, but pretending it never existed at all, looks like? Given the change of "slave" to "servant" is a huuuuge change in implications.

If this is primarily official module stuff, I actually don't have much issue, the setting material is still there in what we already have as needed, but adventures that have stuff that would require a content warning most likely, just being avoided is a pretty reasonable stance to take.

It does make some Baldur's Gate 3 characters a bit difficult to work with, and I expect some losses in warlock lore that people already don't use anyway.



Drow might not be portrayed as acceptable and normal, but they're undeniably portrayed as cool. They didn't get as popular as they are by accident. And so, simply saying "hey, you shouldn't aspire to be like these elves, they're bad - but also look how cool they are, you can totally be one!" rings a bit hollow.

Some people get a kick out of being the bad guys, I am not sure any portrayal changes would mess with that much. Evil as Cool is not really an avoidable thing, just look at the popularity of Disney Villains.

[awa]

drow have never been always evil, that's a straw-man; in fact the most famous drow is good and being the lone rebel was a large part of the appeal.

If Drow society is no longer acceptable to be in the game because its to evil that says to me you should be deemphasizing them not making them boring. Tons of monsters have been quietly shoved under the rug when they no longer fit the game, if the only way to have drow in the game is for them to be boring there shouldn't be drow at all, spend the word count making something interesting instead.

[Bohandas]

Read the Alphastream article and went through the changes. Much of it seems inconsequential enough that it's pretty hard to be bothered by, but one thing stuck out to me as misguided, and made me sour on much of the endeavor: the changes to the language around the barbarian class.

To be quite frank, the Barbarian class is pretty much inextricable from the problematic tropes and attitudes (about 'civilized' or 'uncivilized' people)

I'm personally not comfortable with the idea that anyone living on any of the seven continents during the time periods that fantasy literature emulates would qualify as civilized. Not even the rare educated people or the nobility or the elite.

My opinion on the past is pretty much summed up by the scene in the Doctor Who episode The Pandorica Opens where River Song calls the Roman commander a barbarian.

EDIT:
Maybe with a little of the trash talk from Evil Dead 3 thrown in; Ash isn't exactly smart but he knows things that even the wizard and the noblemen don't, and the civilization he comes from doesn't have grisly public executions.

[Psyren]

Some people get a kick out of being the bad guys, I am not sure any portrayal changes would mess with that much. Evil as Cool is not really an avoidable thing, just look at the popularity of Disney Villains.

Oh, I'm not saying they should try to stop Drow from being cool - quite the opposite. I think they're trying to maintain that coolness while also trying to ensure core is as accessible/non-offputting as possible.



If Drow society is no longer acceptable to be in the game because its to evil that says to me you should be deemphasizing them not making them boring. Tons of monsters have been quietly shoved under the rug when they no longer fit the game, if the only way to have drow in the game is for them to be boring there shouldn't be drow at all, spend the word count making something interesting instead.

1) Which ones?
2) I don't think they're "removing drow society." For the third time, the DMG passage was changed to say:


"Spiderweb decorations, torture chambers, and quarters for enslaved creatures might be common features in a vault built by drow, telling something about that location and its occupants."

That still sounds like Lolthite Drow to me.

[Sigreid]

Well, for starters I don’t think its a good idea to have any intelligent species be “always” any alignment. (Except perhaps literal demons, angels, etc.). Because if a race is Always Evil, it would probably be a Good act to murder all of the Drow children in a village and burn it to the ground, because they had no free will and they were going to do nothing but Evil. Their Evil choices were because of their genetics, not what society taught them or the choices they made.

Then, consider the idea that the main way you can tell the difference between Good elves and Evil elves is the color of their skin. And it is the “Dark” elves that are “Always Evil.”

I could go on and on about this at great length, but doing so would require discussions of slavery and race in the real world (which I think is against forum rules) and how problematic it is to present it the way D&D has presented it in the past to kids.

Meh, I don't really find it particularly unlikely that in a theocracy where the ruling class actually has divine powers bestowed upon them by an evil deity who gets a kick out of testing it's people for power and loyalty with threats of cursed existences or horrific deaths it would be difficult at best to find a few survivors with their conscience and soul intact. /shrug

[Boci]

"Spiderweb decorations, torture chambers, and quarters for enslaved creatures might be common features in a vault built by drow, telling something about that location and its occupants."

So they changed "slave pens" to "quarters for enslaved creatures"....why? Is the implication that drow now have better building codes for where they house their slaves? "Look here Matron, the law very clearly calls for minimum 1 feeding trough per 12 occupants, and you barely have half that. If this isn't fixed in the next tendays I will be issuing you a fine,"

[DeTess]

So they changed "slave pens" to "quarters for enslaved creatures"....why? Is the implication that drow now have better building codes for where they house their slaves? "Look here Matron, the law very clearly calls for minimum 1 feeding trough per 12 occupants, and you barely have half that. If this isn't fixed in the next tendays I will be issuing you a fine,"

I think the important change here is going from 'slaves' (implying something about what the creature is) to 'enslaved creature' (stating something that has been done to the creature).

[Theodoxus]

In Wizards' case, it looks like they are not just removing slavery from the setting, but pretending it never existed at all, looks like? Given the change of "slave" to "servant" is a huuuuge change in implications.

Yet still referencing slavery...


I think the important change here is going from 'slaves' (implying something about what the creature is) to 'enslaved creature' (stating something that has been done to the creature).

So basically all the references to slavery (the act) have changed to 'seeking captives'. Yet, there's still some reference to slavery 'enslaved creature'; why not 'captive creature'? I mean, words have meaning, right? While synonyms exist, they're not perfect replacements. (Here's where folks will come up with pairs of words that mean exactly the same thing.)

Captives imply either hostages or incarceration. They might be indentured servants... slave is the most precise term for that designation. But it's offensive, where murderhoboism isn't?

Do these sensitivity seekers realize this is a game about ruthlessly, and without prejudice, murdering other intelligent beings, on the daily? Decrying some concepts morally bankrupt and others not seems... odd at best.

Slavery is bad, yes. But it's not a (hopefully) permanent state. Unlike death. Talk about taking away a persons sovereignty and freedom to choose!

As the meme goes: "Kill a man who was threatening to blow up an orphanage with a fireball and no one bats an eye. Enslave that same man, forcing him to break rocks, and everyone looses their mind."

[Boci]

I think the important change here is going from 'slaves' (implying something about what the creature is) to 'enslaved creature' (stating something that has been done to the creature).

That's an important change? I don't think so. It could be, for slavery that's the result of captured during war within an ethnicity, but for ethnic based chattel slavery? A goblin born in a drow quarter for enslaved creatures is a slave the moment they were born, and baring a miraculous escape, will die a slave. Arguing "um actually they are an enslaved creature, not a slave" is missing the point at best.

[Aimeryan]

Coming at it from perhaps a different angle; I see this homogenisation as problematic for DMs looking for adventure hooks. It is just a further extention of the DM crisis as I see it. That said, this doesn't need to be attached directly to the races/societies, but there should probably be an official book for starter DMs to get ideas from on how an society may function and what problems that may create - and how adventurers might fit into that.

[Atranen]

Coming at it from perhaps a different angle; I see this homogenisation as problematic for DMs looking for adventure hooks. It is just a further extention of the DM crisis as I see it. That said, this doesn't need to be attached directly to the races/societies, but there should probably be an official book for starter DMs to get ideas from on how an society may function and what problems that may create - and how adventurers might fit into that.

Agreed. One of the more useful pieces of DMing advice for people in AL is: "let the monsters be evil". Often, the mods don't show on screen what the orcs/goblins/drow/whoever are actually doing that is bad. That prompts the "hey, these guys aren't so bad after all", and then players wonder why they're on the adventure in the first place. And while some changes here are just language, some are substantial.

I hope that the kind of attitude reflected in the changes (part of which comes from a good place) doesn't result in players policing their DMs choice of language or enemies, looking for not sensitive enough remarks. There are enough barriers to DMing (and especially DMing 5e) already.

[Damon_Tor]

...Where does it say they're eliminating all mention of slavery everywhere? This article is about the core books specifically. Moreover, they still kept in "enslaved creatures."

Off the top of my head, Mindflayer history is built on them having slaves and thralls. Does the article say anything about that changing?

It's explicitly the reason they won't publish another Dark Sun book, and Athas (the Dark Sun setting) was cut from Starjammer (it was in early drafts as confirmed by various preview releases) presumably for the same reason. So... yeah no, it's very clearly impacting what content we get even beyond the core game.

[tokek]

That's what I'm trying to say. The published adventures are all going to be rather boring and pointless if the authors aren't allowed to have the villians do anything worse than stealing 40 cakes.

This is my only concern. Take out anything that anyone might not like and what have you left in for the party to fight against?

I guess chthulhu type horrors? It might feel very limited when we see new adventures published but I suppose time will tell.

There is an old issue that in a game of killing things and taking their stuff the things you kill had better be outright evil or else it’s the party who are the bad guys.

[NichG]

This is my only concern. Take out anything that anyone might not like and what have you left in for the party to fight against?

I guess chthulhu type horrors? It might feel very limited when we see new adventures published but I suppose time will tell.

There is an old issue that in a game of killing things and taking their stuff the things you kill had better be outright evil or else it’s the party who are the bad guys.

I suspect that the kinds of things that would pass the censors would be plots where the villains are individuals trying to create those forbidden societies or shift existing societies in that direction, versus plots where the villains are established societies and cultures themselves (even if there's a particular individual or group currently at their head as the BBEG). Gortash in BG3 for example - the society he'd create if he had ultimately succeeded would probably not be allowed to exist as background material under these sorts of standards, but he as a villain trying to create such a thing against the backdrop of a more tolerant but somewhat vulnerable society I think would likely pass.

[Psyren]

So they changed "slave pens" to "quarters for enslaved creatures"....why? Is the implication that drow now have better building codes for where they house their slaves? "Look here Matron, the law very clearly calls for minimum 1 feeding trough per 12 occupants, and you barely have half that. If this isn't fixed in the next tendays I will be issuing you a fine,"

I gave a theory as to why in my post above the one you quoted, but theorizing is all I can do; for a definitive answer you'll have to write to WotC, or catch the designers at a con Q&A or something.


It's explicitly the reason they won't publish another Dark Sun book, and Athas (the Dark Sun setting) was cut from Starjammer (it was in early drafts as confirmed by various preview releases) presumably for the same reason. So... yeah no, it's very clearly impacting what content we get even beyond the core game.

(I think you meant Spelljammer; Starjammer is an X-Men thing.)

Dark Sun/Athas is built to be an edgelord setting that hyperfocuses on how crapsack everything is; of course they want to be careful how they approach that. But last time I checked they haven't gotten rid of locations like Menzoberranzan or Sarlona, and there's plenty of slavery and autocracy in both, so my point stands.


Take out anything that anyone might not like and what have you left in for the party to fight against?

See above; they're not "taking out anything for the party to fight against."

[Boci]

I gave a theory as to why in my post above the one you quoted

That distinction seems to be at best missing the point. If you have a goblin who was born a slave, and barring a miraculous escape will die slave, and any children they have will likewise be slaves their whole lives, I will be concerned for a person's moral compass if they genuinely think it is important to call them an enslaved creature rather than a slave.

[Psyren]

That distinction seems to be at best missing the point. If you have a goblin who was born a slave, and barring a miraculous escape will die slave, and any children they have will likewise be slaves their whole lives, I will be concerned for a person's moral compass if they genuinely think it is important to call them an enslaved creature rather than a slave.

As mentioned, as an outsider I can only theorize as to their motivations. If you see no meaningful difference between those two phrasings, that's fine, reach out to them and say so.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah the slavery one was a headscratcher for me too. This kind of censorship is a step backwards.

Removing slavery as a concept is plain stupid.

Yes, slavery is an horrible thing, but so is a dragon attacking a town to steal riches and incidentally eating people just because they were there at the wrong time.
...snip...
So yeah, typical not-thinking-it-through-ism. They have been mailing it in since Tasha's, or slightly before that.

While I personally prefer digital (I came to D&D through the medium of buggy videogames like Baldurs Gate and NWN so I have no issue with convenient patching), I have no issues with static PDFs and printed physical remaining available for those who prefer that. How kindly condescending of you.

Remember people, when you create a fictional world, you have a moral imperative to create a world better than our own. If you let real-world problems exist in your fictional world, that means you want those things to exist in real life, because why else would you include them? It’s not like there’s any value in telling stories about conflict or tragedy.
I don't have to mark this as sarcasm, right? Right?? Yes, I laughed.

I'm fatter than Homer Simpson and even I think removing references to weight is pointless and stupid. I have developed a doughnut paunch in the last year or two: svelte I am not.

"Oh no, not again—another bony adventurer seeking to plunder my riches. I'm not interested in your meagre frame. Get some meat on you! I want beefy! Blubbery! Plump! Porcine! Stop being a slave to public perception and treat yourself. Pies, meat, beer, anything, but lots of it! Eat yourself large, and you'll be welcome here!"

-Demon Door, Fable (2004) Laughed, we did. (My beer gut and I).

Just one example, there have to be groups with slaves for you to, well, rescue slaves. My salt marsh group has been dealing with scarlet brotherhood slavers since level 1. still trying to stamp them out.

[Boci]

As mentioned, as an outsider I can only theorize as to their motivations. If you see no meaningful difference between those two phrasings, that's fine, reach out to them and say so.

Not really worth it, and I suspect you know that too, since you're a pretty smart guy. I likely won't get a response, and even if I did I would have no way of knowing which part of WotC the response comes from. Upper management, designers, the PR department? Who knows. We both know that whilst multimillion/billion dollar companies are capable of making dumb mistakes, they aren't in the habit of openly admitting to them (unless its costing them real money, which minor, meaningless changes won't).

[Rynjin]

I think the important change here is going from 'slaves' (implying something about what the creature is) to 'enslaved creature' (stating something that has been done to the creature).

I feel that is still too insensitive. They prefer to be called "freedom challenged".

[Bohandas]

I feel that is still too insensitive. They prefer to be called "freedom challenged".

I think it's "people of servitude"

[Psyren]

I think the important change here is going from 'slaves' (implying something about what the creature is) to 'enslaved creature' (stating something that has been done to the creature).

You put that more succinctly than I managed :smallsmile: Bravo.



How kindly condescending of you.

"I think they should continue to make all three" is condescending now? :smallconfused: How?


Not really worth it, and I suspect you know that too, since you're a pretty smart guy. I likely won't get a response, and even if I did I would have no way of knowing which part of WotC the response comes from. Upper management, designers, the PR department? Who knows. We both know that whilst multimillion/billion dollar companies are capable of making dumb mistakes, they aren't in the habit of openly admitting to them (unless its costing them real money, which minor, meaningless changes won't).

I mean... you're guaranteed to get no response by doing nothing, so I do think it's a valid suggestion. But I'm also not the only one who landed on the previously mentioned theory (see above.)

[JNAProductions]

I do like the change from "slaves" to "enslaved people". It's a subtle difference, but one that I appreciate with what's been pointed out.
I also commend Wizards of the Coast for making the effort. I highly doubt said change is driven by morality, much more likely dollar signs, but it's a good effort nonetheless.

The exact details of the execution, of course, could use some work. I'm kinda checked out of D&D 5.5 ever since the OGL debacle, and the rules changes don't seem worth getting into for me, and this won't change it for me.

[Boci]

But I'm also not the only one who landed on the previously mentioned theory (see above.)

Oh I don't think you're wrong about why the're doing, I just dispute that the distinction matters when talking about ethnic based chattel slaver, which is the kind drow primarily practice (they also practice enslaving their own, where the distinction is relevant, but on a much smaller scale).


I do like the change from "slaves" to "enslaved people". It's a subtle difference, but one that I appreciate with what's been pointed out.

Its subtle to to read it, but to say "You make our way along the western edge of the quarters for enslaved creatures, approaching the outer wall," it doesn't sound subtle or natural to me, compared with "the western edge of the slave pen / quarters" which is much less stilted. Ditto with "enslaved creatures fighting for the drow" vs. "slave warriors", and here if this is a combat I'll have to reference them multiple times per round, so using a longer, less natural term is even more of an issue here.

[Catullus64]

Its subtle to to read it, but to say "You make our way along the western edge of the quarters for enslaved creatures, approaching the outer wall," it doesn't sound subtle or natural to me, compared with "the western edge of the slave pen / quarters" which is much less stilted. Ditto with "enslaved creatures fighting for the drow" vs. "slave warriors", and here if this is a combat I'll have to reference them multiple times per round, so using a longer, less natural term is even more of an issue here.

So... you can still say it that way? The fact that official game materials modify their terminology for a general audience doesn't actually impact your ability to run the game with the language that comes naturally to you.

[Boci]

So... you can still say it that way? The fact that official game materials modify their terminology for a general audience doesn't actually impact your ability to run the game with the language that comes naturally to you.

Oh I'm well aware of that. In previous posts I also outlined how I disagreed that the change mattered for a goblin born into slavery who will die a slave as well ("It's only temporary! Well, 99% of the time it is in fact life long, but still..."). So yeah, "pointless at best" and "harder to say" is not going to be judged a good change from me.

[Psyren]

So... you can still say it that way? The fact that official game materials modify their terminology for a general audience doesn't actually impact your ability to run the game with the language that comes naturally to you.

Exactly - and in fact that's probably a term that would be used in-universe. But that would reflect more on the mores and attitudes of the creatures referring to it that way, rather than being positioned as an objectively correct or universal term with no speaker necessary.

[Boci]

Exactly - and in fact that's probably a term that would be used in-universe. But that would reflect more on the mores and attitudes of the creatures referring to it that way, rather than being positioned as an objectively correct or universal term with no speaker necessary.

In this specific case "enslaved" is also objectively less correct regarding the current meaning of the words in the English language, at least going by Merriam-Webster and Chambers.

[Just to Browse]

I think the important change here is going from 'slaves' (implying something about what the creature is) to 'enslaved creature' (stating something that has been done to the creature).

Ahh this is smart. Big fan.

[Psyren]

In this specific case "enslaved" is also objectively less correct regarding the current meaning of the words in the English language, at least going by Merriam-Webster and Chambers.

The dictionary meaning of these words focuses on their denotation though. That's likely missing the point of why they're making these changes.

[Boci]

The dictionary meaning of these words focuses on their denotation though. That's likely missing the point of why they're making these changes.

So when you say "an objectively correct or universal term", you don't in fact mean what the words mean in English but rather what WotC wants/intends them to mean?

[Psyren]

So when you say "an objectively correct or universal term", you don't in fact mean what the words mean in English but rather what WotC wants/intends them to mean?

That's right. By assigning those terms without associating them with a particular perspective or point of view, it could be enforcing the idea that that is what the creature objectively is, rather than focusing on the state as something that has been done to them.

[Boci]

That's right. By assigning those terms without associating them with a particular perspective or point of view, it could be enforcing the idea that that is what the creature objectively is, rather than focusing on the state as something that has been done to them.

It could. It could also lead to confusion. After all, in order for a game to be able to dictate what a word in English means in the context of the game, it needs to be a common word, and ideally a rule term, like "adjacent" or "charmed" in D&D. Enslaved is certainly not a rules term, and nor is it particularly common. So its also very likely that this will fail to enforce anything, and people will instead continue to use their understanding / the dictionary definition of what the word means.

[Psyren]

It could. It could also lead to confusion. After all, in order for a game to be able to dictate what a word in English means in the context of the game, it needs to be a common word, and ideally a rule term, like "adjacent" or "charmed" in D&D. Enslaved is certainly not a rules term, and nor is it particularly common. So its also very likely that this will fail to enforce anything, and people will instead continue to use their understanding / the dictionary definition of what the word means.

It certainly could, yes! Which means WotC needs to weigh the cost of that confusion potential by deprioritizing the denotative meaning, vs what they gain emotionally by prioritizing the connotative one. All we can really do is state which we consider to be more effective in a particular instance, as we're doing here, and let the market be the ultimate arbiter of their success or failure.

[Blatant Beast]

Enslaved Person vs Slave, really strikes me as arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The reality of the condition is the salient feature, not the terminology.
The 'Mic drop' explicative moment for me is this:
Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave

The term Enslaved American does not capture the flavor of the historical reality...the people that enslaved him, may not have considered Douglass an American. Displaced person, as a term, comes of as normatively neutral. I would argue such neutrality in language might be useful for diplomacy, but is not a very good at being evocative of the terror of ethnic cleansing...of armed folks, forcibly removing you and others from their home.

If WotC is attempting to clearly stake out a position, vis a vis slavery, why water down the impactful word slave? Enslaved Person is passive language, meant to lessen emotional impact....seems a bad thing to do regarding a topic like slavery.

WotC isn't the UN, if they are going to take a stance, then take it...don't water down the language, to avoid the difficult issues that might arise.

In terms of terminology Dark Elf seems a fine way to describe a particular subset of elves. Dark Elf strikes me as being no different in tone than Wood Elf, which I presume is not being altered.

Many different fantasy worlds have benign Dark or Night elves in them, the term is not limited the original D&D conception anymore. Drow should be the term used to describe the Demon Worshiping variety that Gygax detailed.

[Rynjin]

That's right. By assigning those terms without associating them with a particular perspective or point of view, it could be enforcing the idea that that is what the creature objectively is, rather than focusing on the state as something that has been done to them.

The issue as always is that in trying to make things more inclusive, Wizards instead continually makes them more problematic in cases like this. They are essentially arguing that they ACTUALLY BELIEVE being a slave is an essential quality (which is...mondo yikes) and need to dance around that wording instead of calling a spade a spade.

An enslaved person is a slave in the same way that an employed person is an employee. It in no way connotates that this is an immutable, unchangeable fact about the person's being.

[Boci]

and let the market be the ultimate arbiter of their success or failure.

Its not even that. Good or bad, this change will be minute either way. If 5.5 flops are you going to say "Eeesh, guess they should have stuck with slave pens?" No, of course you aren't. Because that would be a silly read of the situation.

[Narsham01]

That distinction seems to be at best missing the point. If you have a goblin who was born a slave, and barring a miraculous escape will die slave, and any children they have will likewise be slaves their whole lives, I will be concerned for a person's moral compass if they genuinely think it is important to call them an enslaved creature rather than a slave.

You do know this language issues has already been a matter of debate? 5 seconds of Internet search returns this 2015 article, as one example:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/05/historians-debate-whether-to-use-the-term-slave-or-enslaved-person.html

There's a lot more discussion available online. I'm not endorsing that one, but it's an illustration that this conversation has been happening for a long time.

The distinction you're making seems to be encouraging a kind of thought that someone born into (and dying in) a state of enslavement is a slave, not a person who is deserving of freedom or born with any kind of specific right to freedom but who has been forcibly held as a slave across their entire lives. In other words, that state of slavery could be seen as "natural" and inherent to the person being enslaved. And yet, it's a difficult distinction to make if one considers most conditions of slavery. If Drow consider all goblins to be naturally slaves, then Drow NPCs and Drow texts in-game would use the term "slave" to describe goblins; we as players and GMs don't have to go along with that, though. If goblins born into enslavement are raised by or amongst other goblins, and goblins who were not born into enslavement are part of this group, then the young goblins can learn about aspects of goblin culture and that they are not naturally slaves. Even if a given goblin does not gain freedom in a short and brutal life, that goblin has no reason to consider herself "naturally" a slave regardless of what the Drow may say.

In setting, the Gith seem like a really strong rebuttal to any idea that slavery is a characteristic possessed by the enslaved, and not a condition forced upon people by slavers. They were literally held as slaves by a race capable of mind control, and yet they managed to rebel and win their freedom. Would you say Gith, when born, should be called "slave" even if we know that Gith will lead the entire race to rebel and escape enslavement? The Illithid certainly would label him that way, from birth to death, but by Gith's death most people would say that label is definitively wrong.

Out of setting, you could well play at some point in the future, online or in-person, with someone with ancestors who were enslaved and mistreated. Maybe that person won't care if you defend the use of "slave" in this specific circumstance and deploy the term in-game. Maybe they will like it. Maybe they will object strongly. That kind of reaction is individual: not all Black people have the same reaction to the use of the N-word, either. But you're making a very clear decision and statement if you opt to default to use of the N-word, instead of defaulting to not using it. And if you started a new game, and asked the Black player sitting next to you how they felt about the N-word, that'd be pretty weird.

I spend time around people who have strong feelings, positively for "enslaved person" and negatively for "slave." So I use "enslaved person" because I care about those people's feelings. And if describing "slave pens" as "enslaved people's pens" feels unnatural, maybe use a description that's less lazy and encourages RP or even adventure-complication. "You pass by the city's goblin pens. Here, in a squalid collection of rags and blankets, enslaved goblins must wait until called upon as labor or, as they age, as blood sacrifices. A half-naked goblin boy, maybe three years old, watches you from under a bug-eaten blanket as you walk past."

"Look, it's the slave pens" isn't really an invitation to feel anything; neither is "look, it's the enslaved people pens." You can build a sense of atmosphere and generate chances at emotional connection while challenging PCs to get outraged enough to do something brave and foolish; what else is role-playing for? If slavery is a feature in your game, and it isn't actually doing anything for your game, why is it there? Why not have the PCs visit the Drow city, do their business, and move on without getting anywhere near the goblin pens? Drow are no more intrisically slavers than goblins are slaves.

[GloatingSwine]

Agreed. One of the more useful pieces of DMing advice for people in AL is: "let the monsters be evil".

I dunno.

I think a more useful piece of advice is "the monsters have a reason for doing what they're doing" because that prompts the questions "can you live with that?" and "what are you going to do about it?"

And those are way more interesting questions to ask players.

[stoutstien]

In a odd way I'm kinda glad that WoTC is just going all in on the generic wishy-washy approach to content as they haven't shown the capacity to come up with much beyond "its a multiverse but not THAT one."
(VGtR was a shocking good break from this but they immediately pulled a 180 and double down in the opposite direction with everything else that followed)
I definitely don't think they have the motivation to write content relevant to complex RL issues without it coming in phoned in or worse. Heck they still haven't gotten past the whole ugly=evil thing.

So yea I'm not going to give them a hard time for this.

[t209]

Heck they still haven't gotten past the whole ugly=evil thing.
In my opinion, they just changed the opinion of beauty. Like I think TSR and 3E WoTC tend to have less muscular female warrior or round female adventurers compared to now due to not motivated to appeal to those with liking to these two body types. At least not associating them with evil or negative charisma.

[Psyren]

The issue as always is that in trying to make things more inclusive, Wizards instead continually makes them more problematic in cases like this. They are essentially arguing that they ACTUALLY BELIEVE being a slave is an essential quality (which is...mondo yikes) and need to dance around that wording instead of calling a spade a spade.

An enslaved person is a slave in the same way that an employed person is an employee. It in no way connotates that this is an immutable, unchangeable fact about the person's being.

I completely understand you don't agree that such a connotative difference between the two terms exists, and that's totally okay. Enough other people are seeing it that way here, I think.


Enslaved Person vs Slave, really strikes me as arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The reality of the condition is the salient feature, not the terminology.
The 'Mic drop' explicative moment for me is this:
Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave

The term Enslaved American does not capture the flavor of the historical reality...the people that enslaved him, may not have considered Douglass an American. Displaced person, as a term, comes of as normatively neutral. I would argue such neutrality in language might be useful for diplomacy, but is not a very good at being evocative of the terror of ethnic cleansing...of armed folks, forcibly removing you and others from their home.

If WotC is attempting to clearly stake out a position, vis a vis slavery, why water down the impactful word slave? Enslaved Person is passive language, meant to lessen emotional impact....seems a bad thing to do regarding a topic like slavery.

I think "watering it down" (i.e. de-emphasizing the directness of any potential real-world parallels) is the entire point. It's not like they're writing a story about Frederick Douglass specifically, after all, so why make their fantasy game into a reminder of his or any similar explicit historical situation? D&D can have monsters who enslave other creatures without that.


In terms of terminology Dark Elf seems a fine way to describe a particular subset of elves. Dark Elf strikes me as being no different in tone than Wood Elf, which I presume is not being altered.

Many different fantasy worlds have benign Dark or Night elves in them, the term is not limited the original D&D conception anymore. Drow should be the term used to describe the Demon Worshiping variety that Gygax detailed.

I think "Lolthite Drow" vs. "Drow" is even more precise than "Drow vs. Dark Elf." The former again focuses on actions, in this case voluntary association with a cult.


Its not even that. Good or bad, this change will be minute either way. If 5.5 flops are you going to say "Eeesh, guess they should have stuck with slave pens?" No, of course you aren't. Because that would be a silly read of the situation.

5.5? I thought they applied this change to the 2014 (5.0) books on DDB?

[Bohandas]

Oh I'm well aware of that. In previous posts I also outlined how I disagreed that the change mattered for a goblin born into slavery who will die a slave as well ("It's only temporary! Well, 99% of the time it is in fact life long, but still..."). So yeah, "pointless at best" and "harder to say" is not going to be judged a good change from me.

After giving this some thought, this might be a good change specifically in the case of the drow. The drow being able to maintain an effective system of chattel slavery somewhat undermines the idea that they're a strongly chaotic society. That seems like it would depend on the secret police and slave catchers actually caring about returning escaped slaves to their masters, which would depend on people caring about other people's property, the secret police caring about keeping order, and the masters not stiffing any mercenaries they hire. In a truly chaotic evil society I think what you'd wind up would be more an informal Human Centipede/Silence of the LambsBlood and Honey/Temple of Doom people-held-prisoner-in-the-basement type situation

[Slipjig]

This is my only concern. Take out anything that anyone might not like and what have you left in for the party to fight against?

I guess chthulhu type horrors? It might feel very limited when we see new adventures published but I suppose time will tell.

There is an old issue that in a game of killing things and taking their stuff the things you kill had better be outright evil or else it’s the party who are the bad guys.

I suspect that's why we've seen a lot of Illithids as villains lately.

"Vampires, orcs goblins, zombies, and drow are all CLEARLY examples of the author's deep-seated bigotry!" "Fine. You know who is going to be the main bad guys now? Flippin' squid people."

I mean, slavers are one of the few enemy types where the players can generally feel unabashedly GOOD about unleashing the absurd levels of violence a typical group of PCs has access to. If a PC drops a Sickening Radiance on a small time loanshark, the PC is almost certainly the Bad Guy is this situation.

[Bohandas]

I suspect that's why we've seen a lot of Illithids as villains lately.

"Vampires, orcs goblins, zombies, and drow are all CLEARLY examples of the author's deep-seated bigotry!" "Fine. You know who is going to be the main bad guys now? Flippin' squid people."

I mean, slavers are one of the few enemy types where the players can generally feel unabashedly GOOD about unleashing the absurd levels of violence a typical group of PCs has access to. If a PC drops a Sickening Radiance on a small time loanshark, the PC is almost certainly the Bad Guy is this situation.

https://theragingfanboy.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/thesuperdictionary-lexluthorcaketheft001.jpg

[Damon_Tor]

I think the important change here is going from 'slaves' (implying something about what the creature is) to 'enslaved creature' (stating something that has been done to the creature).

It's a weird linguistic standard to set. Are prisoners "imprisoned persons" now? Are employees "employed persons"? The next time I'm dining at a restaurant will my food be served by a serving person after being prepared by the cooking person?

It's just unnecessary verbiage for no actual difference in meaning.

[stoutstien]

In my opinion, they just changed the opinion of beauty. Like I think TSR and 3E WoTC tend to have less muscular female warrior or round female adventurers compared to now due to not motivated to appeal to those with liking to these two body types. At least not associating them with evil or negative charisma.

I was more referring to things like merfolk and merrow. Basically anytime you have something that is corrupted or tainted you need a way to represent it both in action and in some other visual manner.
They fall back on the "they are evil now so they are insane and ugly" troupe as a default in most if the default settings that's use the good/evil paradigm.

[JNAProductions]

It's a weird linguistic standard to set. Are prisoners "imprisoned persons" now? Are employees "employed persons"? The next time I'm dining at a restaurant will my food be served by a serving person after being prepared by the cooking person?

It's just unnecessary verbiage for no actual difference in meaning.

It’s got different connotations.

The literal meaning might not change, but what’s around it does. If only subtly.

[GloatingSwine]

I think the important change here is going from 'slaves' (implying something about what the creature is) to 'enslaved creature' (stating something that has been done to the creature).

Sometimes changing the language doesn't change what you're talking about. This is one of those times.

The people who think of "slave" as an essential feature of a being will not be changed by a euphemishm, and everyone else will be driven to correct the injustice of it by the unambiguous language and the change weakens the situation for them.

[Psyren]

"Vampires, orcs goblins, zombies, and drow are all CLEARLY examples of the author's deep-seated bigotry!" "Fine. You know who is going to be the main bad guys now? Flippin' squid people."


I haven't seen any indication that vampires, orcs, goblins, zombies or drow will stop being able to be enemies/bad guys.


After giving this some thought, this might be a good change specifically in the case of the drow. The drow being able to maintain an effective system of chattel slavery somewhat undermines the idea that they're a strongly chaotic society. That seems like it would depend on the secret police and slave catchers actually caring about returning escaped slaves to their masters, which would depend on people caring about other people's property, the secret police caring about keeping order, and the masters not stiffing any mercenaries they hire. In a truly chaotic evil society I think what you'd wind up would be more an informal Human Centipede/Silence of the LambsBlood and Honey/Temple of Doom people-held-prisoner-in-the-basement type situation

Drow noble houses are definitely still slavers if Baldurs Gate 3 is any indication.

I think the way they'll do Chaotic Evil Menzoberranzan slavery is that it will largely be up to each individual house to catch their own and utilize them effectively. It won't be a societal mandate or anything - but the families that keep large stockpiles of them will have a leg up on those that don't, similar to how corporations that use undocumented labor can undercut the competition, and so it will end up widespread purely through incentives regardless of any kind of official mandate or sanction.

[Bohandas]

It's a weird linguistic standard to set. Are prisoners "imprisoned persons" now? Are employees "employed persons"? The next time I'm dining at a restaurant will my food be served by a serving person after being prepared by the cooking person?

It's just unnecessary verbiage for no actual difference in meaning.

Agreed. It's like they expect these words to produce some magical change, but magic isn't real and swapping out synonyms is never going to change the world. I mean, I suppose that it gives these people a false sense of accomplishment and non-irrelevance, and creating such a false sense is technically a change, but in terms of making the kinds of changes they claim to be after they might as well have changed the word to "hocus pocus"

EDIT:
Actually, strike that. It also alienates potential allies from their cause, so changing it to "hocus pocus" instead would arguably be more effectual, by virtue of its efficiency being non-negative

[t209]

I was more referring to things like merfolk and merrow. Basically anytime you have something that is corrupted or tainted you need a way to represent it both in action and in some other visual manner.
They fall back on the "they are evil now so they are insane and ugly" troupe as a default in most if the default settings that's use the good/evil paradigm.
Yeah, I kinda see that point.
I would also say…Genies, like say Djinn who are air and good looking (though older editions apply that to Efreet/Fire and rest are human looking if different color).
Even if all of them kept slaves, in old editions, even “non-evil” like Air and Water only because they are nicer to them that may give wrong impressions to some people.

[Bohandas]

Yeah, I kinda see that point.
I would also say…Genies, like say Djinn who are air and good looking (though older editions apply that to Efreet/Fire and rest are human looking if different color).
Even if all of them kept slaves, in old editions, even “non-evil” like Air and Water only because they are nicer to them that may give wrong impressions to some people.

Ok, agreed on that count. They definitely need to get rid of it in the cases of non-evil creatures, or else reclassify those creatures as evil

[Psyren]

Actually, strike that. It also alienates potential allies from their cause, so changing it to "hocus pocus" instead would arguably be more effectual, by virtue of its efficiency being non-negative

I strongly suspect the "potential allies" that would be up in arms over these ultimately minor changes, are not the sort of allies they were looking for in the first place, if any.


Yeah, I kinda see that point.
I would also say…Genies, like say Djinn who are air and good looking (though older editions apply that to Efreet/Fire and rest are human looking if different color).
Even if all of them kept slaves, in old editions, even “non-evil” like Air and Water only because they are nicer to them that may give wrong impressions to some people.

I'm guessing that even if all the genies end up neutral at best, Efreet will still be the worst of the lot - though my reasons for that guess intersect with topics that I won't delve into here.

[Bohandas]

I strongly suspect the "potential allies" that would be up in arms over these ultimately minor changes, are not the sort of allies they were looking for in the first place, if any.

Them not currently being allies is indeed implied by the use of the qualifier "potential".

Preaching to the choir accomplishes little in terms of effecting change. You need to change the minds of the people who are against you and solicit the sympathy of people who are currently indifferent

[Psyren]

Them not currently being allies is indeed implied by the use of the qualifier "potential".

Preaching to the choir accomplishes little in terms of effecting change. You need to change the minds of the people who are against you and solicit the sympathy of people who are currently indifferent

That only works with those capable of being persuaded of the value of such change in the first place. Those who aren't, represent wasted effort/resources.

[Blatant Beast]

I think "Lolthite Drow" vs. "Drow" is even more precise than "Drow vs. Dark Elf." The former again focuses on actions, in this case voluntary association with a cult.


The term Drow, emphasizes the separation between Elves and Dark Elves.
The Elves that have varietal names that could almost apply to different species, are Eladrin, (which has a certain logic to it given their extra planar origin), and the racist term Silvanesti Elves used for Wild Elves in the Dragonlance, War of the Lance novels.

The Ravinica Setting, for example, treats Dark Elves as just another part of the Elven Community. The term Drow for me, is inextricably connected to Loth.

Calling Dark Elves, Drow, is continuing to emphasize the separation between the Elves, which seems the opposite of the intent of the change.

[Psyren]

The term Drow, emphasizes the separation between Elves and Dark Elves.
The Elves that have varietal names that could almost apply to different species, are Eladrin, (which has a certain logic to it given their extra planar origin), and the racist term Silvanesti Elves used for Wild Elves in the Dragonlance, War of the Lance novels.

The Ravinica Setting, for example, treats Dark Elves as just another part of the Elven Community. The term Drow for me, is inextricably connected to Loth.

Calling Dark Elves, Drow, is continuing to emphasize the separation between the Elves, which seems the opposite of the intent of the change.

I understand completely how you feel - but in this case, the term "Drow" meaning dark-skinned pragmatist subterranean elf, is one of the things WotC might actually have clear ownership of (in the absence of the OGL.) Hence Paizo choosing to abandon the moniker entirely (https://www.dicebreaker.com/categories/roleplaying-game/news/pathfinder-2e-no-more-drow-remaster-project) upon seeking legal counsel.

[Blatant Beast]

Such Ownership is in no way imperiled by limiting the term Drow to only refer to Lothite foes. It even has the unexpected benefit of explaining Lareth, the Human Priest of Loth in the Moathouse section of the Hommlet/Temple of Elemental Evil.

The term Drow, doesn’t even need to be related to race.

Wildemmont’s Kryn Dynasty serves as a prime example of how to De-Loth Dark Elves.

[Psyren]

The "Drow = Lolth-worshipers only" ship has sailed since Eilistraee. I don't see it changing in the printed game, but you can of course draw the line there at your own table if you want.

[Dr.Samurai]

This is hilarious. This is the kind of stuff we do in my office when we're sending communications; pretending we're not saying something by using other words.

Ooohh... you said "delirium" instead of "madness". Woohoo, total victory!

"Servant" instead of "slave" is hilariously offensive.

These aren't civilized lands you fool, they're just... you know, settled. What differentiates that from unsettled lands? Good question, don't think too hard about it.

Hey, are you a slave? No, I'm just enslaved. Ah, ok, good to know, carry on then.

Thank you for posting OP, I was in need of a good laugh. Sad what's happening to the game though.

Soon our adventure modules will be rounding up drunkards that break curfew. Actually, can we call them drunkards? Soberly challenged? Anyways, our D&D super villains will be the equivalent of people that take up two parking spots at the supermarket.

[Boci]

The distinction you're making seems to be encouraging a kind of thought that someone born into (and dying in) a state of enslavement is a slave, not a person who is deserving of freedom or born with any kind of specific right to freedom but who has been forcibly held as a slave across their entire lives.

The fact that you read that into what I was saying says a lot more about you than me.

[Battlebooze]

Remember people, when you create a fictional world, you have a moral imperative to create a world better than our own. If you let real-world problems exist in your fictional world, that means you want those things to exist in real life, because why else would you include them? It’s not like there’s any value in telling stories about conflict or tragedy.
I don't have to mark this as sarcasm, right? Right??

Your sarcasm is appreciated. Yea, to large degree, that's the feeling I get as well. At this rate, new published NPC badguys will now probably be better people than my fellow player characters!

I've always wanted to play an "evil" campaign!

[Amnestic]

Your sarcasm is appreciated. Yea, to large degree, that's the feeling I get as well. At this rate, new published NPC badguys will now probably be better people than my fellow player characters!


Funny how we've been hearing this line since like...2020 and it's just not materialised almost four years down the line.

The last official published adventure - Chains of Asmodeus, literally a few weeks ago - has you going up against the hells and battling all sorts of fiends (because you're in hell).

[Brookshw]

Funny how we've been hearing this line since like...2020 and it's just not materialised almost four years down the line.

The last official published adventure - Chains of Asmodeus, literally a few weeks ago - has you going up against the hells and battling all sorts of fiends (because you're in hell).

Of course not. They're swapping words with ambiguous meanings that could refer to an intrinsic quality or state of being for one that clearly relates to a actions occurring only. The impact of this new direction after years of it's practice has been negligible on every front.

[Kish]

The term Drow for me, is inextricably connected to Loth.
So I guess you don't play Dragonlance or Eberron.

[Boci]

So I guess you don't play Dragonlance or Eberron.

Hardly an absorb proposition. FR is the default setting, most if not all of the official modules are set there, and another popular setting for games, homebrew worlds, likewise are not Eberron or Dragonlance.

[Unoriginal]

Wildemmont’s Kryn Dynasty serves as a prime example of how to De-Loth Dark Elves.

It really, really really isn't.

It's directly stated that all dark elves belong to Lolth unless they're born within the radius of influence of an handful of artifacts.

Those artifacts are also one of the two methods that can result in a goblinoid not being inherently evil due to belonging to Bane, in that setting.

The other method? A near death experience, which *may* result in the goblinoid getting free will.


That is honestly a million times more offensive that the lore 5e had on the topic in the 2014 PHB, which explicitly states that all mortals have free will and can choose to be of any alignment ven when evil gods try to influence them.

Honestly it's beyond disheartening, but not surprising, that Mercer was never called out for his offensive oxen manure.

[Bohandas]

Funny how we've been hearing this line since like...2020 and it's just not materialised almost four years down the line.

The last official published adventure - Chains of Asmodeus, literally a few weeks ago - has you going up against the hells and battling all sorts of fiends (because you're in hell).

Honestly to me D&D hell usually comes off as less oppressive than the TSA. Likely because too much of the bad stuff is merely told rather than shown (or at least it is when they even bother to tell it)

[Blatant Beast]

It really, really really isn't.

It's directly stated that all dark elves belong to Lolth unless they're born within the radius of influence of an handful of artifacts.
.

All the folks in the Kryn Empire seem to fall under this. Just ignoring the bits that don’t work is fine for those of us that are not consumed with following the soap opera like discontinuity of the D&D meta.

If Drow are going to have a different name from other elves, then take a page out of Eberron, and make Drow not be elves.

[tokek]

I mean, slavers are one of the few enemy types where the players can generally feel unabashedly GOOD about unleashing the absurd levels of violence a typical group of PCs has access to. If a PC drops a Sickening Radiance on a small time loanshark, the PC is almost certainly the Bad Guy is this situation.

That's how I'm using slavers in my game - once you establish someone as part of the slaver networks just watch the gloves come off.

Which addresses the real elephant in the room regarding D&D - the absolutely shocking amount of violence and robbery that was built into the game from the outset. You need to do something to justify that violence or else the morality of the game really is horrible.

But for the most part all Wizards are doing is catering to the sensitivity reader industry and their cheerleaders on Xitter - which is basically rather harmless and largely ineffective but really who cares? So long as they remember that you do need something pretty horrible going on in the game world to morally justify the level of violence of your average D&D party we will all be fine.

[Atranen]

I dunno.

I think a more useful piece of advice is "the monsters have a reason for doing what they're doing" because that prompts the questions "can you live with that?" and "what are you going to do about it?"

And those are way more interesting questions to ask players.

I was going to respond to this, then saw this post that makes my point even better:


That's how I'm using slavers in my game - once you establish someone as part of the slaver networks just watch the gloves come off.

Which addresses the real elephant in the room regarding D&D - the absolutely shocking amount of violence and robbery that was built into the game from the outset. You need to do something to justify that violence or else the morality of the game really is horrible.

When you're running an AL game, you're running a stock module that more often than not assumes "kill all enemies" as a victory condition. There isn't a ton of time for roleplaying out figuring out monster motivations and addressing root causes. So, it's good to make the monsters unambiguously evil.

Not to mention, these are public games and you don't want to prompt a long moral debate between complete strangers.

For home games, exploring the questions you raise is more reasonable.


I suspect that's why we've seen a lot of Illithids as villains lately.

"Vampires, orcs goblins, zombies, and drow are all CLEARLY examples of the author's deep-seated bigotry!" "Fine. You know who is going to be the main bad guys now? Flippin' squid people."

I laughed. And it's true. But, I imagine we will see more and more redeemable squid people.


That only works with those capable of being persuaded of the value of such change in the first place. Those who aren't, represent wasted effort/resources.

Funny how "unable to be persuaded" becomes an innate quality of someone, rather than a state which could be changed by more convincing argument.

[Psyren]

Hardly an absorb proposition. FR is the default setting, most if not all of the official modules are set there, and another popular setting for games, homebrew worlds, likewise are not Eberron or Dragonlance.

They are official settings that contain Drow who are not connected to Lolth. Therefore Drow who are not connected to Lolth are canon, regardless of relative prevalence.



If Drow are going to have a different name from other elves, then take a page out of Eberron, and make Drow not be elves.

My WGtE and ERftLW (and ECS/RoE if you go back further) all refer to Drow as elves. Magically altered/engineered elves perhaps, but still elves, including mechanically.


Honestly to me D&D hell usually comes off as less oppressive than the TSA. Likely because too much of the bad stuff is merely told rather than shown (or at least it is when they even bother to tell it)

Showing what happens in Hell in detail is not only unnecessary, it's counterproductive. When depicting horror, often what you don't show is even more important, because each individual reader's mind will fill in the blanks with what they would find the most oppressive and effectively despair-inducing. In addition, they won't risk going overboard in the attempt and writing something particularly triggering to a real-world audience.



Funny how "unable to be persuaded" becomes an innate quality of someone, rather than a state which could be changed by more convincing argument.

Intransigent viewpoints exist in all manner of inclusivity debates; I'm not so naive as to see D&D as the lone exception. Sometimes the best approach is just to move forward regardless with as many supporters as you can, and not wait around for an impossible consensus.

[Samayu]

I think the important change here is going from 'slaves' (implying something about what the creature is) to 'enslaved creature' (stating something that has been done to the creature).
Yes. And changing from a thing to a person.

Note that this change has been happening in the wider society for some times now. WotC didn't make this one up themselves. Also, I think this change helps remind us of how wrong it is, when we've become inured to the term "slave."

As far as removing the concept of slavery from the core game, or at least limiting it, the more I think about it, the more sense it makes. Think of someone who finds the idea of slavery extremely offensive. And let's say slavery is one of the main features of the enemy's society, so this person gets to destroy the slavers. Yay! But what if slavery is just something that is around? And it's not something the PCs can do anything about? Maybe they have to deal with a group that comes from a region where people can be owned by other people? Having a setting like that normalizes slavery, and doesn't provide an outlet for the player's extreme distaste.

The point is not that you shouldn't include slavery in your settings - the point is that you need to be careful how you handle it, and take into consideration the feelings of your players. And too many consumers of the game won't have the tools to do that, or won't be in a position to do it (AL).

[Unoriginal]

All the folks in the Kryn Empire seem to fall under this.

Because the only folks recognized as part of the Kryn Empire are the ones born within the Area of Effect of those artifacts.

If your parents are dark elves and your mother is forced to give birth while on the road between settlements, you are inherently Lolth's thrall and evil.



Just ignoring the bits that don’t work is fine for those of us that are not consumed with following the soap opera like discontinuity of the D&D meta.

This isn't about continuity, it's about how some writers get a pass for writing offensive stuff if they're good at voicing characters on the internet.



If Drow are going to have a different name from other elves, then take a page out of Eberron, and make Drow not be elves.

I don't see the logic. "Drow" is a subcategory of "elf", like "New York citizen" is a subcategory of "US citizen".

[Boci]

Yes. And changing from a thing to a person.

Note that this change has been happening in the wider society for some times now. WotC didn't make this one up themselves. Also, I think this change helps remind us of how wrong it is, when we've become inured to the term "slave."

I find it kinda worrying people apparently forget slavery is wrong if the word "slave" is used. I know language use can influence how we think, but there are limits to that, and "chattel slavery is wrong" felt like it was one of those things that wasn't subject to this.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I find it kinda worrying people apparently forget slavery is wrong if the word "slave" is used. I know language use can influence how we think, but there are limits to that, and "chattel slavery is wrong" felt like it was one of those things that wasn't subject to this.

I've played with utterly clueless teenagers. Those who can barely look outside themselves on a good day. Kids who were legitimately described as "privileged". Those who hadn't been told "no" in their lives. Kids who didn't understand that most people don't take cruises on a moment's notice or fly to Paris for brunch regularly. Yet when I described the goblin women as being slaves to the master who was mistreating them, they unanimously (across multiple parties on separate occasions, without communication) strung him up by his guts (specifically, "nailed him to the ceiling by his intestines") and would have done much worse if I hadn't faded to black. There have been many parties who have gone to great lengths to free slaves and cause particular damage to slave holders. No, even the most clueless, privileged kids know that slavery is BAD WRONG.

I think this whole thing is super overblown. At best it's a euphemism treadmill--take an "offensive" term, replace it with a new one. New one picks up all the same connotations, so the cycle repeats until there are no more good words to actually describe things. At worst, it's a show of power by the twitterati, showing that they can force people to use stilted, awkward, inaccurate language lest they get whined at publicly. Neither of those is a good use of time to enable. Sure, it's utterly inconsequential. But a waste of developer time and resources--changing copy isn't free. New print cycles are not free. And they pay these "sensitivity readers".

[Boci]

I've played with utterly clueless teenagers. Those who can barely look outside themselves on a good day. Kids who were legitimately described as "privileged". Those who hadn't been told "no" in their lives. Kids who didn't understand that most people don't take cruises on a moment's notice or fly to Paris for brunch regularly. Yet when I described the goblin women as being slaves to the master who was mistreating them, they unanimously (across multiple parties on separate occasions, without communication) strung him up by his guts (specifically, "nailed him to the ceiling by his intestines") and would have done much worse if I hadn't faded to black. There have been many parties who have gone to great lengths to free slaves and cause particular damage to slave holders. No, even the most clueless, privileged kids know that slavery is BAD WRONG.

That my thoughts too. Like how sexism in games vs. killing in games. Sexist attitudes can absolutely rub off on players, less so for "killing is fun". People who play violent games are not more violent in real life. Slavery in this sense benefits from a lack of ambiguity, which not even killing has. Killing is usually bad, but not necessarily always. Self defence for example. By contrast, chattel slavery is always bad. Its not an unlawful version of something you can sometimes do. Its distinct and bad, there no lines to blur.

So whatever dangers there are or might be from linguistic ambiguity, I don't forgetting slavery is wrong is among them.

[Psyren]

I think this whole thing is super overblown. At best it's a euphemism treadmill--take an "offensive" term, replace it with a new one. New one picks up all the same connotations, so the cycle repeats until there are no more good words to actually describe things.

When have we ever run out of "good words to actually describe things?"


I find it kinda worrying people apparently forget slavery is wrong if the word "slave" is used. I know language use can influence how we think, but there are limits to that, and "chattel slavery is wrong" felt like it was one of those things that wasn't subject to this.

I don't think it's about people forgetting; rather it's about "hey, maybe the very first books we expect newcomers to this hobby to pick up shouldn't be throwing the darkest fantasy themes with potentially triggering real-world parallels in their faces right off the bat." People seeking out those themes have plenty of places to do so once they're invested, including outside of WotC-published material.

[Boci]

I don't think it's about people forgetting; rather it's about "hey, maybe the very first books we expect newcomers to this hobby to pick up shouldn't be throwing the darkest fantasy themes with potentially triggering real-world parallels in their faces right off the bat." People seeking out those themes have plenty of places to do so once they're invested, including outside of WotC-published material.

But as you said, nothing was actually changed. The drow still practice ethnic based chattel slavery, its right there, along with torture chambers. I can understand the above sentiment, but if so, you should be demanded WotC do it, because as of these changes, they haven't.

[Psyren]

But as you said, nothing was actually changed. The drow still practice ethnic based chattel slavery, its right there, along with torture chambers. I can understand the above sentiment, but if so, you should be demanded WotC do it, because as of these changes, they haven't.

They didn't outright remove that aspect of the culture, no, but these language changes have de-emphasized it/toned it down. Again, this is more apparent for those who place more weight on connotation than denotation, which I completely understand isn't everyone.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They didn't outright remove that aspect of the culture, no, but these language changes have de-emphasized it/toned it down. Again, this is more apparent for those who place more weight on connotation than denotation, which I completely understand isn't everyone.

The problem with connotation is that it's personal. As in, every person can have their own connotation, and all of those are "true". Thus, worrying about others' perceptions of connotations is a no-win--you literally cannot please everyone, and connotations are a moving target. Words have meanings, defined by their use. Connotations come and go, being internal to cultures. Thus, trying to force everyone to adhere to your constructed meaning is an exercise of power over language--"words mean what I want them to mean, not how they're commonly used." Humpty Dumpty could get away with it, because that was a story. But following the arbitrary whims of tiny sub-cultures makes things harder to understand for everyone else. It's literally a form of obfuscation, a form of outright bad writing. Using more words where fewer would do and fewer would also be clearer.

It also doesn't actually accomplish the goal of preventing offense, because nothing can do so. Taking offense is a free choice (DC 0), and there are whole subcultures whose entire identity revolves around finding reasons to be offended. And no, those reasons don't actually have to make any objective sense to anyone else. And can change at the drop of a hat, including to the exact opposite. Lots of terms have done that exact cycle, including terms for various ethnicities.

[Boci]

They didn't outright remove that aspect of the culture, no, but these language changes have de-emphasized it/toned it down.

Right, but its ethnic based chattel slavery. Its not suppose to be palatable or toned done. Its morally repugnant to our society.


The problem with connotation is that it's personal.

Often, but not always, not necessarily. "Odorous" is defined in the websters as "having an odor", yet the English speaking world, or at least Britain and America, have largely decided it has negative connotations.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Right, but its ethnic based chattel slavery. Its not suppose to be palatable or toned done. Its morally repugnant to our society.

Yeah. And toning it down makes it more palatable, not less. That is, it tells people "oh, that isn't so bad" by hiding the repugnant reality. It's putting a pretty dress on a decaying zombie that's trying to eat your brains.

And Odorous has only taken on that denotation (and yes, the dictionary actually lists that new meaning) because we lost the counterpart term, malodorous. Which is my point. We've lost useful words due to vocabulary compression. And these sorts of changes, this euphemism treadmill, is exactly one of the forces that pushes towards vocabulary compression.



Odorous(n): Having or emitting an odour. Originally: sweet-smelling, scented, fragrant. Now (usually): having a strong, characteristic, or unpleasant smell…

[JackPhoenix]

I think the important change here is going from 'slaves' (implying something about what the creature is) to 'enslaved creature' (stating something that has been done to the creature).

So the description of the creature's current status, something that can be changed, is somehow worse than an event that will be forever a part of the creature's history?
A freed slave is no longer a slave. A creature that was enslaved is still a creature that was enslaved, even if it gets free.

[Psyren]

Right, but its ethnic based chattel slavery. Its not suppose to be palatable or toned done. Its morally repugnant to our society.

Right - so why should the core D&D books play up things that are "morally repugnant to our society?"


Yeah. And toning it down makes it more palatable, not less. That is, it tells people "oh, that isn't so bad" by hiding the repugnant reality. It's putting a pretty dress on a decaying zombie that's trying to eat your brains.

And Odorous has only taken on that denotation (and yes, the dictionary actually lists that new meaning) because we lost the counterpart term, malodorous. Which is my point. We've lost useful words due to vocabulary compression. And these sorts of changes, this euphemism treadmill, is exactly one of the forces that pushes towards vocabulary compression.

But we didn't lose "malodorous." You literally just used it! :smallsigh:

[Nagog]

Removing slavery as a concept is plain stupid.

Yes, slavery is an horrible thing, but so is a dragon attacking a town to steal riches and incidentally eating people just because they were there at the wrong time.

If their goal is just to go "well not all drow in every setting do slavery, so it's not fair if their entry mentions it", then sure, but then stop writing anything in that entry because not all X ever do Y if we go at the scale of the multiverse.

Not all Beholders are xenophobic in every setting, not all Hill Giants are hungry in every setting, not all Devas are good aligned Celestial in every setting.

So yeah, typical not-thinking-it-through-ism.

Yeah this is where I'm at with this: I'm a much much bigger fan of heroes that see injustice in the world and set out to right it than I am of "Oh some big bad Wizard is looking to disrupt our perfect utopia! Quick, hero, defend the status quo!". When the world is squeaky-clean and doesn't have terrible things in it, why would my character stop living a normal life and decide they need to train in weapons or magic that harms people? If there isn't friction between societies because everybody is accepted, what use is there for a Soldier background or stat block?



I dont disagree, but again, the 2014 DMG did contain that contrast/implication. Whenever it used "civilization" it wasn't referring to tribes the way you just highlighted, it was referring to "villages, towns, and cities" in the western mold.

Then wouldn't it be better to simply refer to them all as civilizations rather than banning the word entirely?
I never noticed that they typically only used the term "civilization" to refer to "western-mold" civilizations, and I am less convinced about the supposed connotation of that term. If anything, "civilization" has a connotation to me of any organized society of large size, so a single town or village of any race wouldn't quite be called "The X Civilization", no matter how they build their society. A large tribe or interconnected network of tribes of Orcs would still be "Orcish Civilization" even if they are living in tents and migratory. This feels like a made-up connotation somebody decided they'd been doing wrong and now they're going full scorched earth on it rather than just being better about it.


It seems lime they're going in two different directions with the villains. They're changing orcs and drow to no longer be villains just because, but it sounds like they're also not wanting to have villains doing any really evil stuff. So if they can't do any evil stuff and they can't be villains just because, are they just not gonna have any villains anymore? Or do they want the PCs to be like the comics version of The Punisher and crack people's heads open for littering and jaywalking? Or what?


WoTC may end up doing exactly that. Setting books may end up just becoming backdrops with a bit of genre support for the settings that aren't typical fantasy settings.



Agreed. I won't buy anything where people can meddle with it after it's been purchased or that tries to phone home to its makers or does anything creepy like that.

This is a good policy no matter what the medium it is. Movies and TV shows are the hardest to do this with due to the advent of Streaming, but I've got my fingers crossed that this same thing doesn't happen to resource books like these on a wide scale.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Right - so why should the core D&D books play up things that are "morally repugnant to our society?"


Because it's morally repugnant. Otherwise you're white-washing it (can I even say that anymore?). You're making this thing that is repugnant, no matter how you phrase it, seem less repugnant by obfuscating the horror of it. You're making it more acceptable, not less.



But we didn't lose "malodorous." You literally just used it! :smallsigh:

It was lost from the common parlance. And that's what matters--most people would need it defined and would think "that's a weird big word". That's lost as far as regular conversations go.

[Boci]

Right - so why should the core D&D books play up things that are "morally repugnant to our society?"

Calling a chattel slave a slave is not "playing up" anything any more than calling them "enslaved creature" is. Both are morally repugnant. The problem is some people seem to be arguing the latter is less morally repugnant, and that's a little worrying.


It was lost from the common parlance. And that's what matters--most people would need it defined and would think "that's a weird big word". That's lost as far as regular conversations go.

Or "I know what it is, but we don't use it anymore". Like "ye". I don't don't need it defined or anything, but if someone uses it and isn't trying to be old timey or funny, I'm worried they haven't slept enough and are delirious, because we just don't use it anymore.

[Sigreid]

Calling a chattel slave a slave is not "playing up" anything any more than calling them "enslaved creature" is. Both are morally repugnant. The problem is some people seem to be arguing the latter is less morally repugnant, and that's a little worrying.



What's amusing to me is they're keeping Conjuration and Enchantment, both of which are hard to see as anything other than short term enslavement.

[JNAProductions]

What's amusing to me is they're keeping Conjuration and Enchantment, both of which are hard to see as anything other than short term enslavement.

Err...

Look, Enchantment can be quite squicky if used without lots of care, but Conjuration includes stuff like Fog Cloud, Teleport, and Mighty Fortress. Those aren't inherently malicious spells-in fact, they're less inherently bad than a lot of Evocation spells. Fireball hurts, man.

[Psyren]

Then wouldn't it be better to simply refer to them all as civilizations rather than banning the word entirely?

They didn't "ban the word entirely"; they removed its use in that specific context/implication. The uses of it that remain are indeed culturally agnostic in the way you're requesting. For example, the DMG still includes the following use of "civilization":



Significant events in the history of a fantasy world tend towards immense upheavals; wars that pit the forces of good against evil in an epic confrontation, natural disasters that lay waste to entire civilizations, invasions of vast armies or extraplanar hordes, and assassinations of world leaders.

Note that the use of the term above can indeed apply to any cultural configuration - western towns and villages, forest-dwelling hunter-gatherer societies that live off the land, nomadic/tribal caravan cultures, more fantastic ones like undersea/astral colonies, and literally anything else. All of them could be equally impacted by natural disasters.


I never noticed that they typically only used the term "civilization" to refer to "western-mold" civilizations, and I am less convinced about the supposed connotation of that term.

That you never noticed it is perfectly valid for you - but it doesn't mean nobody else did, including them.
If what you're saying though is "It never stood out to me, therefore they were wrong to change it" - that's Personal Incredulity Fallacy.


Calling a chattel slave a slave is not "playing up" anything any more than calling them "enslaved creature" is. Both are morally repugnant. The problem is some people seem to be arguing the latter is less morally repugnant, and that's a little worrying.

I don't think I can explain the difference between the two phrasings and why the latter might be more acceptable for core any better than DeTess did. If her post doesn't help, we may have to leave it there.


Because it's morally repugnant. Otherwise you're white-washing it (can I even say that anymore?). You're making this thing that is repugnant, no matter how you phrase it, seem less repugnant by obfuscating the horror of it. You're making it more acceptable, not less.

Even if you find value in surfacing these topics (and to an extent, I do too) that doesn't make the core books the ideal vehicle for doing so. The core books by their very nature have to be light on the sort of context and gravitas these topics deserve.

[Boci]

Err...

Look, Enchantment can be quite squicky if used without lots of care, but Conjuration includes stuff like Fog Cloud, Teleport, and Mighty Fortress. Those aren't inherently malicious spells-in fact, they're less inherently bad than a lot of Evocation spells. Fireball hurts, man.

Sure, but enchantment has spell that aren't inherently malicious too, like bless and heroism. I think we both know which Conjuration spells Sigreid is talking about.


I don't think I can explain the difference between the two phrasings and why the latter might be more acceptable for core any better than DeTess did. If her post doesn't help, we may have to leave it there.

Likely yeah. The other problem is the lack of consistency. You and some posters are saying is less triggering, played down this way, whilst Samayu says this change helps remind how bad it is. Such a polar responses lead me to conclude that either the changes themselves or their implementation was badly handled.

[NontheistCleric]

Err...

Look, Enchantment can be quite squicky if used without lots of care, but Conjuration includes stuff like Fog Cloud, Teleport, and Mighty Fortress. Those aren't inherently malicious spells-in fact, they're less inherently bad than a lot of Evocation spells. Fireball hurts, man.

There are a fair few benign buff spells in Enchantment too, and the odd damage one which isn't any worse than blowing someone up.

[Boci]

There are a fair few benign buff spells in Enchantment too, and the odd damage one which isn't any worse than blowing someone up.

Depends how you fluff them. Some people imagine psychic damage to be pretty gruesome.

[Unoriginal]

Playing down slavery is morally repugnant and only benefit the slavery apologists.

Doesn't mean you need graphic descriptions of the reification and tortures the people subjected to it go through, but the language that's here should be clear that yes, it's that bad.

If D&D needs a content warning about how its bad guys are murderers, slavers and people-eaters, so be it. Place that content warning at the beginning of all books in a visible, clear spot. But don't downplay how bad those things are.

Worth noting that even meant-for-small-kids shows like My Little Pony or the Dreamstone have slavers, murderers and people-eaters among its bad guys.

[Psyren]

Likely yeah. The other problem is the lack of consistency. You and some posters are saying is less triggering, played down this way, whilst Samayu says this change helps remind how bad it is. Such a polar responses lead me to conclude that either the changes themselves or their implementation was badly handled.

I have no doubt that the change itself will upset some, by making them think more closely about a potentially triggering topic. WotC's job is to strive for the best result for as many people as possible, knowing that getting universal approval is an impossible task.


What's amusing to me is they're keeping Conjuration and Enchantment, both of which are hard to see as anything other than short term enslavement.


Sure, but enchantment has spell that aren't inherently malicious too, like bless and heroism. I think we both know which Conjuration spells Sigreid is talking about.

This is a perfect example of why context is important though. "Dominate Person and Planar Binding are magic spells that exist" is one thing; "The Mage-Kings of Istar frequently use Dominate and Binding spells as a source of cheap slave labor and adult entertainment throughout their empire" is quite another. The latter could certainly be interesting as a world-building element, but doesn't really have a place in the core books, while the former does.

[Boci]

I have no doubt that the change itself will upset some, by making them think more closely about a potentially triggering topic. WotC's job is to strive for the best result for as many people as possible, knowing that getting universal approval is an impossible task.

That...doesn't have much to do with what I said, which was actually:

If a change has some people say "Great change, I like how it de-emphasises the aspects of slavery" and others "Great change, I like how it reminds us how wrong slavery is" then there has probably been a screw up somewhere.

Or alternatively: my take away from this thread is I may have been overestimating how well other people understand how bad slavery is and why it is so. The answers, to me at least, are "bad enough that you should need a reminder" and "for reasons that have very little to do with word choice" respectively.

[Psyren]

That...doesn't have much to do with what I said, which was actually:

If a change has some people say "Great change, I like how it de-emphasises the aspects of slavery" and others "Great change, I like how it reminds us how wrong slavery is" then there has probably been a screw up somewhere.

These two conclusions are not mutually exclusive though. And if both groups are saying "Great change" then I would consider that a success, and I'm willing to bet WotC would too.


Or alternatively: my take away from this thread is I may have been overestimating how well other people understand how bad slavery is and why it is so. The answers, to me at least, are "bad enough that you should need a reminder" and "for reasons that have very little to do with word choice" respectively.

My point is that I don't think emphasizing "how bad slavery is" is the purpose of the books that are intended to be the on-ramp to not just their flagship game, but for many people, the TTRPG hobby as a whole.

[Boci]

These two conclusions are not mutually exclusive though.

Yes they are...a single change cannot make something more and less triggering at the same time, that's not possible. If people are bothered by slavery, the're bothered because its so wrong, and being reminded of that more will make them more bothered, not less.


My point is that I don't think emphasizing "how bad slavery is" is the purpose of the books

But other people do, which speaks to a miscommunication from WotC somewhere along the line.

[JNAProductions]

Yes they are...a single change cannot make something more and less triggering at the same time, that's not possible. If people are bothered by slavery, the're bothered because its so wrong, and being reminded of that more will make them more bothered, not less.

If people are a monolith and no one feels differently about the same thing, then yes.

However, as evidenced by this thread, different people feel differently about the same thing.

[Boci]

If people are a monolith and no one feels differently about the same thing, then yes.

However, as evidenced by this thread, different people feel differently about the same thing.

No, you missed my point. "Good change" and "Bad change" are expected, there's no avoiding that, its not what I was talking about. "Good change, it make X more" and "Good change, it makes X less", for the same change, implies there's been a miscommunication somewhere. Regardless of whether or not we think its a good idea, we should know why WotC thought these changes were important, or at least the intended purpose. And as this thread has show, we don't. That's a problem. Not a major one, but it is undesirable. This isn't about "feeling", its about knowing, the feeling is whether or not you like change, and this going to vary from person to person, but we're not there yet.

[NontheistCleric]

Depends how you fluff them. Some people imagine psychic damage to be pretty gruesome.

Anything can be fluffed to be gruesome. Fire damage burns people alive. Acid eats them up. Thunder damage can liquefy their insides, etc.

[Psyren]

But other people do, which speaks to a miscommunication from WotC somewhere along the line.

Something not being painstakingly spelled out, played up, or glorified in the core books sends a message of its own.


No, you missed my point. "Good change" and "Bad change" are expected, there's no avoiding that, its not what I was talking about. "Good change, it make X more" and "Good change, it makes X less", for the same change, implies there's been a miscommunication somewhere.

Only if you view "aspects of slavery being de-emphasized in the core books" and "making people think about the fact that slavery is a bad thing" as mutually exclusive objectives. Where we apparently disagree is that I think it's possible to achieve both of these.

[Boci]

Only if you view "aspects of slavery being de-emphasized in the core books" and "making people think about the fact that slavery is a bad thing" as mutually exclusive objectives. Where we apparently disagree is that I think it's possible to achieve both of these.

They mutually exclusive at the same time. You can work towards one in context/circumstances A and the other in context/circumstances B, but you can't do both at once with the same change, no.

Also I'm curious:


"making people think about the fact that slavery is a bad thing"

Do you understand how worrying it can be to read that? The belief that it is necessary?

[Silverblade1234]

This may have been pointed out already, but there's been a growing trend in professional inclusivity/diversity/critical spaces to use this sort of active language (e.g., "minoritized groups"). This is just following that trend. I find it plausible that some of their sensitivity readers (which we want Wizards to be listening to) pointed out that some of their language on these topics is not necessarily in line with current inclusivity best practices, and it's an easy change to make a few wording changes as part of their larger commitment to inclusivity and diversity.

[Psyren]

They mutually exclusive at the same time. You can work towards one in context/circumstances A and the other in context/circumstances B, but you can't do both at once with the same change, no.

Then we simply disagree on that, which is okay, and there's not much more to be said. Not all viewpoints can or need to be reconciled.


Do you understand how worrying it can be to read that? The belief that it is necessary?

Well yeah, in an ideal world we could just rely on words denotatively and there wouldn't be any negative associations with their use beyond what the authors intend there to be. But that's not the world WotC lives in. The extent to which they stepped in it with the Hadozee and Vistani before they had their sensitivity process is proof of that.


This may have been pointed out already, but there's been a growing trend in professional inclusivity/diversity/critical spaces to use this sort of active language (e.g., "minoritized groups"). This is just following that trend. I find it plausible that some of their sensitivity readers (which we want Wizards to be listening to) pointed out that some of their language on these topics is not necessarily in line with current inclusivity best practices, and it's an easy change to make a few wording changes as part of their larger commitment to inclusivity and diversity.

Correct - and yes, other posters have indeed pointed out the trend. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?662232-More-inclusivity-changes-a-coming&p=25914117&viewfull=1#post25914117)

[Boci]

Well yeah, in an ideal world we could just rely on words denotatively and there wouldn't be any negative associations with their use beyond what the authors intend there to be. But that's not the world WotC lives in.

Is it though? Where are these people, who don't know slavery is bad? Where do you meet them?

I live in Europe. There is a problem here (small thankfully) of teenagers thinking Nazis are cool (don't worry, they mostly grow out of it, not always though unfortunately). Having the Empire be based off them likely didn't help here. To date though, I have never met any one, young or old, who didn't think the slave trade was morally reprehensible. So the world I seem to live in is one where slavery is seen as worse than the Nazis (which is ironic, since slave labour was one of the many crimes committed by the nazis).

[Raven777]

I think what Boci might allude to, or at least the way I interpret the last decade of DEI myself, is that from a Sapir-Whorf perspective, concerted efforts to remove tropes and language from media compound to active cultural engineering.

[Boci]

I think what Boci might allude to, or at least the way I interpret the last decade of DEI myself, is that from a Sapir-Whorf perspective, concerted efforts to remove tropes and language from media compound to active cultural engineering.

For "slave" becoming "enslaved creature" I don't actually mind, I'm just a little concerned on the reasons some people give for why the distinction matters. The change of "slave" to "servant" and "labourer" does however genuinely problematic. Not major, but its not ideal.

Then there's some changes with are good. Having the recommended set up of a rakasha forcing orphans to work in a sweat shop at the orphanage for him be changed into forcing them to steal for him is probably an improvement. Its still pretty dark, but less so, and more dynamic. Having the players pickpocketed by one of them is an easy way to introduce this plothook, which doesn't work as well if its instead a slave den.

[Trafalgar]

For "slave" becoming "enslaved creature" I don't actually mind, I'm just a little concerned on the reasons some people give for why the distinction matters. The change of "slave" to "servant" and "labourer" does however genuinely problematic. Not major, but its not ideal.


How about "prisoners with jobs"? or "Serfs"? A lot of people say serfdom in many countries was akin to slavery.

[Boci]

How about "prisoners with jobs"? or "Serfs"? A lot of people say serfdom in many countries was akin to slavery.

Prisoners with jobs is too humorous to be a default term, its sounds like you're trivialising it. Serf could work, they do use it in one for fire giants, but under the heading "Feudal Lords", which is kinda required, it would be a bit weird to use serfs without the note of that system.

Reading it over now, its actually a bit confusing as first printed, because it alternates between slave and serf, with not apparent system, to making it all serf works here, but I'm not convinced it will work in general for a fantasy world not universally modelled after medieval Europe.

[Psyren]

For "slave" becoming "enslaved creature" I don't actually mind, I'm just a little concerned on the reasons some people give for why the distinction matters.

I genuinely don't know what else I can tell you beyond my earlier suggestion then. If you think our reasoning doesn't hold up, you can always try going to the source.


The change of "slave" to "servant" and "labourer" does however genuinely problematic. Not major, but its not ideal.

From the context of those particular instances I think the changes amount to actual cultural modifications. Dao and Efreet Nobles might simply not use slaves to the same degree anymore, they can still be evil bastards with voluntary/compensated servants like any other evil executive or noble (I mean, they literally grant wishes after all, it shouldn't be hard to get a resume or two.)

[Boci]

IFrom the context of those particular instances I think the changes amount to actual cultural modifications. Dao and Efreet Nobles might simply not use slaves to the same degree anymore, they can still be evil bastards with voluntary/compensated servants like any other evil executive or noble (I mean, they literally grant wishes after all, it shouldn't be hard to get a resume or two.)

Nope, go back and check. The labourers is for drow, so nope still slaves, and the efreet are "oppressive tyrants to those they force to labour for them".

So yeah, I would count this as further evidence that WotC badly handled this, if that's the impression you mistakenly got.

[Psyren]

Nope, go back and check. The labourers is for drow, so nope still slaves, and the efreet are "oppressive tyrants to those they force to labour for them".

So yeah, I would count this as further evidence that WotC badly handled this, if that's the impression you mistakenly got.

I wasn't talking about the Drow/Laborers change, just the geniekind/Servants one. I know (Lolthite) Drow are still slavers who rely primarily on forced labor.

And yes, Efreet and possibly Dao still have some, but that doesn't mean it's to the same degree as before, or in the same context. Going from "host of slaves" to "host of servants" could imply a difference in the makeup of their primary work force, or at the very least give the DM more license to make such alterations themselves.

[Boci]

And yes, Efreet and possibly Dao still have some, but that doesn't mean it's to the same degree as before, or in the same context. Going from "host of slaves" to "host of servants" could imply a difference in the makeup of their primary work force, or at the very least give the DM more license to make such alterations themselves.

They are literally called "oppressive tyrants" who force people to work for them. Does that really imply a softening of them to you? DMs don't need a permission from WotC to change this, and those that don't realize ithis will need more of a nudge than changing "slaves" to "servants".

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Ogre: Ok, I think we've reached the productive end of this conversation, and we are DEFINITELY straying into the political.