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

The Glen

Legend
Not great. Think Jim Holloway art, not the cool warrior Jim Holloway art but the cross-eyed silly idiot Jim Holloway art. Both in the art and some of the writing.

Also derivative Aztecs (as in the humanoids copied the actual Mystaran Aztec peoples). with accompanying art.

Some salvageable stuff, but not great IMO.

But sure, it will let you play orcs and kobolds and goblins and bugbears and gnolls as PC race/classes in BECMI. I never read the classes though in depth to comment more on them.

The drivethru description essay is pretty good for the product, it gives some history on playing monstrous races in D&D and other early RPGs.

The Orcs of Oinkmar (it was written in TSR's silly phase), have a reason in canon for resembling Aztecs. They were given the city by the patron of the Azcan people after he drove out the elves that lived in the city. He then told them to start acting like the rest of his followers. Atzanteotl is a bit of a bastard that way. The shadow elves wouldn't follow him so he drove them out and now plans to kill them along with the descendants of the Azcan that worship somebody else.
 

prabe

Tension, apprension, and dissension have begun
Supporter
Then make it so. The MM is clear that you're free to do that - even if it should be more than just a paragraph buried in the intro.

I agree it's possible with the 5E rules as presented (though Volo's might make it harder to make orcs non-evil). I was clarifying for @Remathilis what I had in mind. It wouldn't necessarily be orcs 'n' elves, but it could plausibly be. You'd need the players to be OK with murky morality, as well as the DM, of course, and my experience is that most people aren't looking for that as an entire campaign.
 

VelvetViolet

Adventurer
Okay so scrap the super predator angle, scrap the headdress. Nobody will notice that if someone is from a specific region and worships a specific religion they're evil radical terrorists. But what if I kill all the soldiers? What about the wife and kids they left at home, am I now responsible for them? Suddenly we're spending more time discussing the morality and responsibilities of war than playing a beer and pretzels game.
Can’t you solve this by simply stating orcs pop out of holes in the ground, adult and holding weapons? That’s what 13th Age does and it’s great.
 

Aldarc

Legend
@Remathilis, one can still have forces of good, evil, chaos, law, and balance that exist across the planes, but have it so that all mortals are pawns for these cosmic forces because mortals have the power and agency to choose their sides of the conflict.
 

You should remember there is a canon orc subrace of orcs, the odonti.


Were the vickings from North Europe a "evil" race?
 

Remathilis

Legend
I was really thinking about making both sides Good ...
Well, do you mean "good" or Good? If you mean "good" as in both sides feel they are morally right and the other side morally wrong, you basically have a perpetual war of ideas that ends when both sides get tired of throwing there young at a meat grinder. But if you mean Good as in how D&D objectively defines the cosmic force, you probably would have a hard time getting it to escalate to blows. Good is about cooperation and peaceful settling of difference, only resorting to violence to protect the innocent. D&D is a world of divination magic and God's with absolute alignment; I'm fairly certain that two good forces wouldn't engage in conflict for long, usually only until whatever issue or misunderstanding is corrected, or until a bigger Evil threat appears to threaten both Good ones. Basically, it's the equivalent of something akin to Marvel's Civil War (movie or comic).
 


prabe

Tension, apprension, and dissension have begun
Supporter
Well, do you mean "good" or Good? If you mean "good" as in both sides feel they are morally right and the other side morally wrong, you basically have a perpetual war of ideas that ends when both sides get tired of throwing there young at a meat grinder. But if you mean Good as in how D&D objectively defines the cosmic force, you probably would have a hard time getting it to escalate to blows. Good is about cooperation and peaceful settling of difference, only resorting to violence to protect the innocent. D&D is a world of divination magic and God's with absolute alignment; I'm fairly certain that two good forces wouldn't engage in conflict for long, usually only until whatever issue or misunderstanding is corrected, or until a bigger Evil threat appears to threaten both Good ones. Basically, it's the equivalent of something akin to Marvel's Civil War (movie or comic).

I mean Good with the capital-G. It could be anything from a difference in outlook/priorities to a misunderstanding to long-standing prejudice. D&D might have divination magic and assorted gawds and other Powers, but at the game level it's mostly mortals who are prone to error. There's no reason you couldn't have two Good groups at war with each other; it probably wouldn't be a ruthless war of extermination, but I could see it being possible for both sides to (mis)take the other as an existential threat. I find putting the PCs in a position to choose between competing goods more satisfying than forcing them to choose the lesser evil.
 

VelvetViolet

Adventurer
But if you mean Good as in how D&D objectively defines the cosmic force, you probably would have a hard time getting it to escalate to blows.
I find putting the PCs in a position to choose between competing goods more satisfying than forcing them to choose the lesser evil.
This is why I discarded good/evil alignment and use law/chaos instead. Moorcock had the right idea and D&D just made it stupid.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top