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

Personally I'm wondering how video games that use "always evil and okay to kill" intelligent creatures, particularly ones like The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, would react to the shift away from "always evil" creatures in D&D if they were so inclined.

In that game you've got your "good" races (hylian, rito, zora, goron, and gerudo) that the game will not allow you to harm. Then you've got your "evil" races like bokoblins (basically goblins), moblins (basically ogres), lizalfos (basically lizardfolk), hinoxes (basically cyclopes), and lynels (basically super centaurs). They all bow to the will of the evil Ganon (who is pretty much a demon lord) and always attack on sight. A big part of the fun of the game is figuring out creative ambushes on unaware monsters that might be resting together by campfires, sleeping in the middle of a clearing, wandering around, or hanging out in their various living quarters (like platforms built around trees or giant skull shaped houses).

Obviously the game could just disallow the ability to harm monsters that aren't threats. However, what if someone modded Breath of the Wild in a way that you could still harm monsters, but every now and then those monsters do not attack on sight, or are even capable of being spoken to and can provide services similar to what other NPCs provide?

Suddenly the ambush element of the game is gone (at least for players who don't want to harm innocent monsters) because you never know if the bokoblins sitting around the campfire are hostile or not or if the lynel would rather trade than attack you with an onslaught of arrows, fireballs, and oversized melee weapons. You'd always have to make your presence known first.

Then what happens to the evil monsters? Can you still kill them? What if a bokoblin tries to surrender? Do you have to let them go, tie them up and take them to town for a trial?

EDIT: Admittedly, the setting of Breath of the Wild is one in which these monsters destroyed a vast amount of the kingdom that stood there 100 years ago and slaughtered most of its population, with only a few surviving settlements on the outskirts. So it's not like a D&D setting where you go out into unexplored territory and kill the native orcs or whatever.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

The Zelda example doesn't quite work, because of how they respawn. They are literally a manifestation of the Evil that Calamity Ganon generates, and when the Blood moon rises, they come back, so Zelda mobs in BotW are more like Demons/Devils/Elementals than orcs or goblins. Mind you that gets a little loosey goosey with the banana loving yiza clan though
 

The Zelda example doesn't quite work, because of how they respawn. They are literally a manifestation of the Evil that Calamity Ganon generates, and when the Blood moon rises, they come back, so Zelda mobs in BotW are more like Demons/Devils/Elementals than orcs or goblins. Mind you that gets a little loosey goosey with the banana loving yiza clan though

I doubt people would be satisfied if WotC came out said "orcs, goblins, gnolls, and all other always evil humanoids are fiends now, who'll respawn somewhere at sometime if you kill them".
 

Mercurius

Legend
I'm reminded of a Zen koan:

Before Zen, mountains are mountains. Orcs are evil. Kill 'em all.

During Zen, mountains are no longer mountains. Wait, orcs aren't necessarily evil...things aren't so black-and-white...are they people? What's going on?

After Zen, mountains are mountains again. Oh, its just a fantasy game - none of this is real. Orcs are evil again (or not). Kill 'em all (or not).
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I am struggling to understand how it harms the game for "monsters" to have motivations beyond simply being evil. When has D&D even been a Diablo game where you mow down foes rather than role-playing your interactions with them?
I do role-play my interactions with them.

That this role-playing often consists only of the single word "CHAAARRGE!" is hardly my fault, is it? :)
 

VelvetViolet

Adventurer
I doubt people would be satisfied if WotC came out said "orcs, goblins, gnolls, and all other always evil humanoids are fiends now, who'll respawn somewhere at sometime if you kill them".
If I understand correctly, then the point of contention is noticeable resemblance to specific real world stereotypes. Using spawn points would address a couple points of similarity, such as “they want our women” and “kill the children.”

I'm reminded of a Zen koan:

Before Zen, mountains are mountains. Orcs are evil. Kill 'em all.

During Zen, mountains are no longer mountains. Wait, orcs aren't necessarily evil...things aren't so black-and-white...are they people? What's going on?

After Zen, mountains are mountains again. Oh, its just a fantasy game - none of this is real. Orcs are evil again (or not). Kill 'em all (or not).
If I understand correctly, then the reason this is even a debate is because some players of color are deeply disturbed by D&D’s language regarding humanoids.
 

Oofta

Legend
The reverse is also true; if the primary purpose of orcs are to be antagonists, why do they need deeper motivation? Are you having philosophical debates with the orc guards in the dungeon? Are you arresting goblin bandits and having them stand trial for their crimes? When you enter a hobgoblin camp, is your first instinct to negotiate trade relations with the nearby village? They are primarily used as antagonists, and what motivations they may have tend to be evil because the game is a lot cleaner when you don't have two factions of "good people" on both sides.

My thoughts as well. In Star Wars we have Storm Troopers, in a lot of other games we have Nazi soldiers. How many get mowed down in movies and games?

From a game design perspective, having them as the go to bad guy serves a very specific purpose. If I'm playing a Star Wars game I know the storm troopers are the bad guys. Unless it's specified otherwise in the campaign when I'm playing D&D the orcs are the bad guys. I can set aside the real world and just roll some dice and have fun.

On one last note, I don't see how using a thesaurus to come up with different words for raiders and savages really changes anything. There are only so many words in the english language. Besides a raider is someone who does sudden attacks and assaults, a bandit is an outlaw. To me they have different connotations. Doesn't mean some of the wording an imagery shouldn't change just that it's not as simple as people imply.
 

Remathilis

Legend
My thoughts as well. In Star Wars we have Storm Troopers, in a lot of other games we have Nazi soldiers. How many get mowed down in movies and games?

From a game design perspective, having them as the go to bad guy serves a very specific purpose. If I'm playing a Star Wars game I know the storm troopers are the bad guys. Unless it's specified otherwise in the campaign when I'm playing D&D the orcs are the bad guys. I can set aside the real world and just roll some dice and have fun.

On one last note, I don't see how using a thesaurus to come up with different words for raiders and savages really changes anything. There are only so many words in the english language. Besides a raider is someone who does sudden attacks and assaults, a bandit is an outlaw. To me they have different connotations. Doesn't mean some of the wording an imagery shouldn't change just that it's not as simple as people imply.
What I feel is going to happen is that orcs and other humanoids will stop being primarily antagonists and just become another PC race. The raiders attacking the town will have the same odds of being humans, elves, or gnomes as they will orcs, drow or goblins. (Or maybe the raiders will be a mix of all six of them!)

I read how Paizo turned goblins from the superstitious pyromaniacs of 1e to a viable PC ancestry in 2e. That is the template of D&D humanoids going forward.
 

Oofta

Legend
What I feel is going to happen is that orcs and other humanoids will stop being primarily antagonists and just become another PC race. The raiders attacking the town will have the same odds of being humans, elves, or gnomes as they will orcs, drow or goblins. (Or maybe the raiders will be a mix of all six of them!)

I read how Paizo turned goblins from the superstitious pyromaniacs of 1e to a viable PC ancestry in 2e. That is the template of D&D humanoids going forward.

Yeah, I get it. It doesn't matter much to my home campaign, I just won't allow those races just like I don't currently allow Drow or Dragonborn.

I just think the game loses a level of simplicity and easy to grasp concepts that are easier to add in than take out. So it's one thing if they expand and expound on the concept of monsters of any type not following the default alignment, it's another if they get rid of alignment altogether.

I don't expect any dramatic changes anytime soon though, last I checked 5E is still going strong and I don't think 6E will happen (if it does) until that changes.
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
My thoughts as well. In Star Wars we have Storm Troopers, in a lot of other games we have Nazi soldiers. How many get mowed down in movies and games?

From a game design perspective, having them as the go to bad guy serves a very specific purpose. If I'm playing a Star Wars game I know the storm troopers are the bad guys. Unless it's specified otherwise in the campaign when I'm playing D&D the orcs are the bad guys. I can set aside the real world and just roll some dice and have fun.

There are a couple problems with this line of reasoning. Unlike how you wish to view orcs, nazis and stormtroopers aren't born evil—they have aligned themselves with and work for a political and military organization that is evil and espouses an evil ideology. They have chosen to be evil either through action (signing up with the evil organization) or through inaction ("just following orders"). More over, both nazis and stormtroopers are capable of renouncing their alegiance to their evil organization and ideology (with examples in history and fiction). So, yes, we don't feel bad for them when they are killed in fiction but it's because that work for an evil organization and work to advance that organization.

WotC changing the orc entry to have the alignment unspecified as a whole and instead used at the individual level doesn't change that you can have orcs as the bad guys. Just, now, instead of them being born evil they are now evil based on allegiance and ideology (with those that aren't a part of that particular organization or ideology aren't necessarily evil). Considering that there have been depictions of orcs that aren't evil in previous edition, the only change here is the acknowledgement of such and a presentation that reflects it.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top