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

Oofta

Legend
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.
Yeah, that would be another option. Someone else suggested magical "lightning" that hit mud and created orcs. Half orcs come from people infected by the mud.

One option I suggested was that orcs undergo a special ceremony at puberty (which orcs reach faster than most races) dedicating themselves completely to Gruumsh. Reinforces the supernatural hold Gruumsh maintains while giving groups a different option to break free from the god's brainwashing.
 


Oofta

Legend
I would suggest googling "mud people" before going further with that.

It wasn't my idea but unfortunately there are potential land mines wherever you look. I remember someone taking umbrage at DQ selling moo-lattes because it was similar to mulatto (at one time a derogatory word that fell out of use over half a century ago). I mean, I guess I can see the association? If you happen to know the connection already?

Another option would be that they are literally pod people. Thick thorn covered vines with giant pods that hatch full grown orcs. When the flowers bloom before the pods form, women occasionally give birth to half orcs.

Or they're just orcs and we leave it at that no matter what role they play in any particular campaign.
 



Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
I would suggest googling "mud people" before going further with that.

In the case of my setting orcs, they are pig-like Monstrosities (not humanoid) born from the blood-soaked earth being struck by lightning during a blood storm summoned by Grummsh after a large battle or massacre. They are more akin to ghouls or Dragon Age Darkspawns, thus the change of creature type. At this point, I could just change the name and they would be another creature completely.

But yeah I would see that having regular humanoid orcs being made from mud would be a big nope.
 

Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
In published D&D texts, I think we ought to avoid the idea of women being impregnated against their will. In fact I'd suggest we avoid the idea of half-orcs altogether.

Yeah, not a big fan of half-race neither. With my above mentioned orcs, half-orcs are grown humans that were caught in the spawning of the orcs or drank the foul mud necessary to their spawning in a ritual and this tainted blood can be channeled (if the person survived the transformation), again, like with the Darkspawns in Dragon Age.
 

VelvetViolet

Adventurer
In published D&D texts, I think we ought to avoid the idea of women being impregnated against their will. In fact I'd suggest we avoid the idea of half-orcs altogether.
I can totally agree with that. Forced pregnancy is horrible, inherently misogynistic, and it’s lazily overused in the fantasy genre for shock value.

Which is why I prefer the trope of monsters which lay their eggs inside people regardless of sex, like the xill. It preserves the horror while jettisoning the misogyny.
 

Oofta

Legend
In published D&D texts, I think we ought to avoid the idea of women being impregnated against their will. In fact I'd suggest we avoid the idea of half-orcs altogether.

Yeah, I was thinking more along the lines of the next kid they have would be a half orc. Guess that wasn't clear. Which could mean that some women might seek them out because they want strong children.

Point is, I think there could be different back stories. I don't have a problem with standard orcs, just kind of having fun with the idea.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top