D&D 5E WotC's Jeremy Crawford Talks D&D Alignment Changes

Jeremy Crawford has spoken about changes to the way alignment will be referred to in future D&D books. It starts with a reminder that no rule in D&D dictates your alignment. Data from D&D Beyond in June 2019 (Note that in the transcript below, the questions in quotes were his own words but presumably refer to questions he's seen asked previously). Friendly reminder: no rule in D&D mandates...

Jeremy Crawford has spoken about changes to the way alignment will be referred to in future D&D books. It starts with a reminder that no rule in D&D dictates your alignment.

align.png

Data from D&D Beyond in June 2019

(Note that in the transcript below, the questions in quotes were his own words but presumably refer to questions he's seen asked previously).

Friendly reminder: no rule in D&D mandates your character's alignment, and no class is restricted to certain alignments. You determine your character's moral compass. I see discussions that refer to such rules, yet they don't exist in 5th edition D&D.

Your character's alignment in D&D doesn't prescribe their behavior. Alignment describes inclinations. It's a roleplaying tool, like flaws, bonds, and ideals. If any of those tools don't serve your group's bliss, don't use them. The game's system doesn't rely on those tools.

D&D has general rules and exceptions to those rules. For example, you choose whatever alignment you want for your character at creation (general rule). There are a few magic items and other transformative effects that might affect a character's alignment (exceptions).

Want a benevolent green dragon in your D&D campaign or a sweet werewolf candlemaker? Do it. The rule in the Monster Manual is that the DM determines a monster's alignment. The DM plays that monster. The DM decides who that monster is in play.

Regarding a D&D monster's alignment, here's the general rule from the Monster Manual: "The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign."

"What about the Oathbreaker? It says you have to be evil." The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss!

"Why are player characters punished for changing their alignment?" There is no general system in 5th-edition D&D for changing your alignment and there are no punishments or rewards in the core rules for changing it. You can just change it. Older editions had such rules.

Even though the rules of 5th-edition D&D state that players and DMs determine alignment, the suggested alignments in our books have undeniably caused confusion. That's why future books will ditch such suggestions for player characters and reframe such things for the DM.

"What about the werewolf's curse of lycanthropy? It makes you evil like the werewolf." The DM determines the alignment of the werewolf. For example, the werewolf you face might be a sweetheart. The alignment in a stat block is a suggestion to the DM, nothing more.

"What about demons, devils, and angels in D&D? Their alignments can't change." They can change. The default story makes the mythological assumptions we expect, but the Monster Manual tells the DM to change any monster's alignment without hesitation to serve the campaign.

"You've reminded us that alignment is a suggestion. Does that mean you're not changing anything about D&D peoples after all?" We are working to remove racist tropes from D&D. Alignment is only one part of that work, and alignment will be treated differently in the future.

"Why are you telling us to ignore the alignment rules in D&D?" I'm not. I'm sharing what the alignment rules have been in the Player's Handbook & Monster Manual since 2014. We know that those rules are insufficient and have changes coming in future products.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
D&D is not a fictional world. It is a game.
... a game, played in a fictional world. Can't really avoid that.

The thing is, though, that fictional world doesn't have to reflect in any way the morals, values, ethics or standards of the real world if you don't want it to.

I almost wonder if in trying to make the baseline assumptions more reflect the real world WotC are causing themselves more headaches than not; in that the closer the baseline is expected to reflect the real world the more inaccuracies and mis-portrayal issues will arise.

Not least of which is the increasing mismatch between modern ethics, morals, etc. and those of the generally-medieval-ish times on which the baseline settings are founded.
 

Longspeak

Adventurer
I think pulling a Luke Skywalker "There is good in you" and trying to redeem a Yuan-Ti even though you keep getting flak for it is a very interesting character trait. As a GM I would certainly run with it.
He wasn't trying to redeem a specific Yuan-Ti. He was arguing about how people shouldn't just assume a couple hundred magically disguised Yuan-Ti in the city necessarily meant something was wrong. :p

Yeah, if a character was defending a specific Yuan-Ti - which has happened - that is a different kettle of fish. But he was questioning the view on the entire species, both IC and OOC..
 
Last edited:

In this case, I agree with Gygax. I would rather see WotC promoting real critical thinking by encouraging players to create their own worlds that perpetuate tropes.
I would rather have the core rules of 5e be flavor free.

Then different settings would flavor these rules differently.

In 3e, the SRD to a large degree functioned as a flavorless set of rules.

Unfortunately, the 5e SRD "bakes" too much flavor into the rules themselves. So it is difficult to disentangle the game from Forgotten Realms assumptions.

Part of the racism problems comes from relying on Forgotten Realms assumptions rather than Eberron assumptions.
 

... a game, played in a fictional world. Can't really avoid that.

The thing is, though, that fictional world doesn't have to reflect in any way the morals, values, ethics or standards of the real world if you don't want it to.

I almost wonder if in trying to make the baseline assumptions more reflect the real world WotC are causing themselves more headaches than not; in that the closer the baseline is expected to reflect the real world the more inaccuracies and mis-portrayal issues will arise.

Not least of which is the increasing mismatch between modern ethics, morals, etc. and those of the generally-medieval-ish times on which the baseline settings are founded.

Wonderful points.
 

prabe

Tension, apprension, and dissension have begun
Supporter
I almost wonder if in trying to make the baseline assumptions more reflect the real world WotC are causing themselves more headaches than not; in that the closer the baseline is expected to reflect the real world the more inaccuracies and mis-portrayal issues will arise.

Not least of which is the increasing mismatch between modern ethics, morals, etc. and those of the generally-medieval-ish times on which the baseline settings are founded.

If they're doing it because it's the right thing to do, the headaches may not be their primary concern--I'd argue they shouldn't be.

Also, I think the mismatch you point at can be resolved, at least somewhat, in the narratives of the settings. It's certainly possible to homebrew a world to whatever aesthetic or moral preferences you have (I'd be inclined to say it'd be nigh-impossible not to, barring some edge-case stuff).
 

Referencing the threads talking about the Oriental Adventures-type of source books and adventures, I think the more they move away from alignments, the less likely we will get anything for 5E that is along that theme. Unless they reintroduce it is some way for specific settings, whether it actually called alignment or not.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
The thing is, though, that fictional world doesn't have to reflect in any way the morals, values, ethics or standards of the real world if you don't want it to.

Correct. It doesn't. But, if it doesn't, then you may lose engagement from your customers.

I know movies aren't RPGS, but do consider - movies definitely follow the thoughts of the times they are made in. That's because the audience is mired in those times, and they are not going to actually remove themselves completely from their day-to-day concerns. So, movies tend to at least make metaphorical nods to those concerns. Same for books.. and same for the stories we play through ourselves!

I almost wonder if in trying to make the baseline assumptions more reflect the real world WotC are causing themselves more headaches than not; in that the closer the baseline is expected to reflect the real world the more inaccuracies and mis-portrayal issues will arise.

What, as if the original wasn't made to match the real world of the 70s and 80s?

Have you not considered that D&D from inception up through 2e is basically a Cold War product, reflecting Cold War themes? And that, since that time, it has been slowly shifting to reflect new themes for new times?
 



Remove ads

Remove ads

Top