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

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
D&D has never been a truly generic RPG system. From the very beginning, it's had flavour assumptions baked in that other RPG systems that truly qualify as generic don't have.

Since no system does everything well, there's no such thing as a truly generic system. Every system winds up having a flavor baked in - fitting to some genres better than others.

That's a feature, not a bug.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


prabe

Tension, apprension, and dissension have begun
Supporter
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?

I'd always figured they were themes reflecting the source material--mostly LotR--but I wouldn't argue against those themes being Cold War themes. It's plausible I didn't notice the Cold War elements because I grew up during it.
 

Plenty of D&D is formed by 1970s US culture and history, just look at orcs. To Tolkien, they were a clever, industrial people who could craft magnificent engines of war, basically early 20th century industrialists and war profiteers. To Gygax they became tribal, nomadic barbarians - effectively the "indians" in "cowboys and indians".

Warhammer is probably closer to the original orcish conception with their cockney orcs.
 


Jacqual

Explorer
Well Crawford stated that the Drow and Orcs will be updated in an upcoming unannounced book that along with the rather expansive class options UA could really point to a book that is basically D&D 5.5 edition. This would basically grant a revised Ranger with those options. Include the new summoning spells with rules dictating said spells replace the old ones. Then put in it the Psionic rules (classes/feats) and some other stuff like reprint Artificer with all subclasses including Armorer.
 


Yeah, but could you imagine the kerfuffle over necromancer-elves, dino-rider halflings, and dwarves with aberrant appendages in the core rules?
Eberron presents different kinds of elf cultures with different kinds of religiosities. So, positive-energy undead ancestors is only one option among many.

Aberrant dwarves are only one option among many.

Cannibalistic halflings are disturbing, somewhat terrifying, and could be problematic. But Eberron design generates cultural diversity to choose from. So there is no race essentialism. My favorite halflings are the 4e river nomads.

Characterizing Eberron drow as ... dark-skin jungle-dwelling savages ... shows poor judgment. But they tried to walk that back, so while some tribes are feral, other tribes are urban. Eberron might want to completely rethink what an Eberron drow is, in order to remove unfortunate tropes from the D&D game. The thing is, Eberron drow are atypical, in that they actually are similar to the Forgotten Realms drow, with the evil scorpion not so different from the evil spider. It is an example of what kind of tropes designers should avoid recycling thoughtlessly.
 
Last edited:

aaronm

Explorer
Because I see people trying to dictate the way others live by pushing their own opinions on others, which is pretty lame. Personally, I don't believe in borders, but I don't see why I have the right to tell anyone else to change his/her opinion on the matter without first agreeing to a constructive discussion.

You're missing the point: The status quo is also "pretty lame" -- perhaps just not for you.
 

Magister Ludorum

Adventurer
I stopped using alignment in my AD&D game back in 1983, except for those who actually served the metaphysical beings of the outer planes.

I appreciate that this is the first edition in which I don't have to write house rules to get around game mechanics that rely on alignment.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top