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

I suspect we were more like bonobos in prehistoric times, during a "garden of Eden", sotospeak.

This was a pretty common belief among people who studied early humanity in the 1970s and 1980s, I should note. It's not particularly outre. Unfortunately there's very little evidence from that period. There's wild disagreement on all sort of things, like when exactly humans learned to speak. Modern human physiognomy comes in perhaps 200k years ago, but we then have an extremely long time before technology, even the vaguest sense, really starts moving, and it takes a very long time to speed up too.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lylandra

Adventurer
what we do know is that women tended to be better nourished and much "beefier" during the hunter-gather periods than they were during the agricultural periods that followed after it.
 

Yes, we are hominids. But some worldviews say that we aren't only hominids, or that we have something that differentiates us from other hominids.
Traditionally, what separates us from other great apes, is the capacity of speech. I am inclined to agree with this.

While our speech difference is quantitative rather than qualitative, we are a breakthru in the power speech. To the degree, our human species evolved to radically rely on speech, and its power to learn new realities, identities and cultures, to make new tools instead of biological defenses. Our semiotic constructs also cloak our biological impulses.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Bonobos who are almost genetically identical to humans, are almost entirely bisexual. Perhaps there are 5% that are only gay and 5% that are only straight. But biologically and culturally, bonbos are bi.
Okay. So what. Humans share half their DNA with a Banana. It doesn't take much difference in DNA to make a huge difference in species.
 




Mecheon

Sacabambaspis
You do realize that there is a sizable portion of the population that takes great offense at being compared to apes and monkeys, right?
Biology don't care about their opinion on it. We're from a group of apes that evolved bipedalism for possibly moving around in trees easier (Apes and monkeys use it for moving in trees carefully), moved down from the trees where it turned out this whole bipedal thing was really dang good at endurance, had a massive genetic bottleneck at some point, and ended up spreading across the world.
 

Okay. So what. Humans share half their DNA with a Banana. It doesn't take much difference in DNA to make a huge difference in species.
Human DNA and bonobo DNA are almost 99% identical.

There is more. Where the bonobo disresembles the chimpanzee, the bonobo resembles the human. The bonobo faces are more diverse to socially recognize individuals, like humans. Bonobo walk bipedally more often, like humans. Bonobos reuse sex for social bonding, like humans, instead of seasonal reproduction. And so on.
 

Mercurius

Legend
I have some agreement with your narrative, and think it is a interesting conversation, but would suggest we ground it in the context of D&D--if only to abide by forum rules.

Let's say I agree with you that a future "garden of Eden" would involve far greater sexual diversity, and pretty much everyone being their own unique configuration, and all accepted--except those forms that caused harm to others.

How does this impact how D&D should depict sexuality now, in 2020? Should it present an ideal--that only some hold--or should it do its best to represent the actual self-identification of the community?

Still waiting for a reply on this, @Haldrik . We can discuss prehistoric peoples and bonobos and ideal states of culture, but what do you suggest right now that represents the actual community? What is appropriate or adequate representation?
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top