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

Mercurius

Legend
Your feelings matter. You come across as a decent guy, so I want to be clear that what I am about to say has nothing to do with you. I am just speaking abstractly about principles that apply to all of us equally.



Feelings matter.

At the same time, the feelings of a bully are complicated.

Our feelings of irrational hate are dangerous. They are what they are, but require us to harness such feelings constructively and ethically.

Hatespeech that derives from hate is censorable. Hatecrimes that derive from hate are punishable.

First comes the thought/feeling, then comes the speech, then comes the action.

The feeling of anger is a healthy response to a "perceived injustice". At the same time, we must doublecheck to make sure that our "perception" is accurate in the first place. Perhaps, under scrutiny, there does appear to be an injustice. Then we have to channel this anger in compassionate and patient ways, to motivate us to speak out for the sake of justice, and to do our own share of the hard work to help achieve a more fair community.

Good thoughts. terms like "hatespeech" and "hatecrimes" are subject to interpretation. Sometimes the answer is clear, but often-times not so much.

And of course there's the issue of "derives from hate." Of course I cannot know this, but it would seem that in every instance of possible censorship of D&D products that have been discusssed, none of it was derived from hate. Maybe there are exceptions, I don't know. But as far as I can tell, the worst possible interpretation would be that some designers were guilty of stereotyping-via-pastiche and maybe subconscious prejudice.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
"easily identified"? we're talking about playing pretend around a table with other people. I don't need the bad guys to be green with horns to know who I need to fight. even in video games and movies with no monsters or aliens it's fairly visually obvious who the bad guys are supposed to be.

I understand your position and it aligns closer to the way I prefer to play. But if I may interject one thought here, morally it's not okay to kill bad guys just because they are bad guys. I like playing that way so I get the appeal. But if you want to be good and kill bad guys it's not just about easily identifiable bad guys, it's about easily identifiable bad guys that it won't be evil to kill.
 

Oofta

Legend
I think this is a really, really easily solvable problem, even if alignment were removed.

DM: You see some orcs ahead. They have gnome skulls tied to the handles of their axes.
Paladin: Oh, these must be the orcs who have been raiding gnome villages.

Fight begins.

or:

DM: You see some orcs ahead. They are walking next to a wagon.
Range: I am going to hide in a tree and look closer.
DM: The wagon is full of pigs.
Paladin: Oh, these must be those orc pig farmers who live up the road.

or:

DM: You see some figures up ahead. It looks like a mix of orcs, humans, and goblins. They carry a banner with the symbol of a bloody ax.
Wizard: Oh no! that's the symbol of the Bloody Ax Bandits!
DM: Roll initiative!

Oofta, I have seen you bring this up a few times in various threads. I don't think anyone disagrees with you that having easily identifiable enemies is both a tradition in D&D and a fun part of playing the game. In fact, I would love it if the standard D&D rulebook had more ways to easily identify the bad guys! Maybe under "Orcs" in the Monster Manual, they could give a few different examples of orcs that would serve as "easily identifiable antagonists" to the players!

You even identify that this is a separate issue:



But maybe it's time to let go of the "how they look represents if they are evil or not" trope. I know you really like this one, and it's pretty deeply embedded in fantasy, but do you see how this idea of judging if something is good or evil based on its appearance alone can be problematic?

There are just so many other ways to quickly identify if something is an antagonist or not.

I just use the shortcut version. "You see orcs up ahead". I find it easier. You do what makes sense for you campaign, I'll do what makes sense to mine. I really don't see why you care how I run my campaign, I certainly don't tell you how to run yours.

Besides, gnome skulls? Are you trying to confuse me? One evil monster wearing the skull of another evil monster doesn't really tell me much. :p
 

BookTenTiger

He / Him
I just use the shortcut version. "You see orcs up ahead". I find it easier. You do what makes sense for you campaign, I'll do what makes sense to mine. I really don't see why you care how I run my campaign, I certainly don't tell you how to run yours.

Besides, gnome skulls? Are you trying to confuse me? One evil monster wearing the skull of another evil monster doesn't really tell me much. :p

But it's not about our individual games, these are discussions about how these things should be depicted in WotC's publications.

Do you agree, then, that WotC should not use the trope of "appearance indicates good or evil?"
 

Tales and Chronicles

Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
Which all goes back to something I posted oh so long ago in a thread long closed. What purpose do monsters serve in the game? Along with why are intelligent creatures handled differently if they're vaguely shaped like humans?

It also relates to Crawford's post - if it make sense to have a good orc do it. If it makes sense to have a good demon, consider it done. Which, if that's what you want in your game fantastic! It might even be a game I could enjoy.

But most of the time I just want monsters to be easily identified as monsters whether that's because they're hulking brutes with green skin and tusks or because they smell of sulfur, have red skin. horns and a tail.

It's a separate issue from some of the wording and imagery that has been traditionally used.

I think one root of the problem is the ''playable orc''. The more the game pushed toward orcs has a playable folk, the more they become removed from what they were designed to be.

In an homebrewed setting I'm now designing, I want to return to monstrous orcs because I want to reduce the actual number of humanoid races (Gnolls will be ''fiends'', Orcs ''monstrosities'', kobolds to ''dragons''). I went back to the basic pig-man orcs, deeply inspired by the swines from Darkest Dungeon, Darkspawn from D.A and a Warhammer like mentality where their minds generate such an intense focus/emotion on Feed, Breed and Destroy that they are naturally gifted psionic (of the wilder type). Existence for an orc is divided in two simple categories: The Flesh and the Meat. The Flesh comprise all living things until they become the Meat, which is what the Flesh consumes to be alive.

In my lore, after a great act of violence (battle field, scene of murder etc) Grummsh is able to manifest in a rainstorm of blood, creating large pools of bloody mud. When lightning strikes the mud, it create a spawn (fleshling) that quickly grows by eating other spawns until only the strongest remains. When the bloody puddles dries, the new orcs emerge and go on to create another massacre worthy of Grummsh to create more of its kind. In a sense, orcs in this setting are like a cyst upon creation.

Orc priests act as psionic leaders, guiding a group from rampage to rampage by channeling the collective fury of the band to manifest great powers. Since orcs generations end quickly due to the brutal requirement of the Flesh and the Meat, orc clans keep an Oblex ooze in their sanctum. When a leader grows too weak or is dying, the clan feeds him to the Oblex so that the ooze can conserve its gathered knowledge and memories.

Half-orcs are usually humans that got infected by the breeding mud of the orcs and survived the infection.
Ogres are giant-kind creatures infected by the mud.

1594335976402.png
1594335995451.png
1594336022620.png
1594336057858.png
1594336089192.png
 

Oofta

Legend
But it's not about our individual games, these are discussions about how these things should be depicted in WotC's publications.

Do you agree, then, that WotC should not use the trope of "appearance indicates good or evil?"


I think monsters serve a purpose in the game. I think the shape and form of intelligent monsters should not matter, they can still be monsters. In my mind there's no difference in the consciousness, self awareness or option to have freedom of will (or not) between an orc, an aboleth, a ghoul or a balor. It's debated whether or not humans in the real world truly have freedom of will and actually make choices. People's personalities can change overnight because of disease and strokes. I have no problem with an orc being hard wired for evil in a fantasy setting where they were created for the sole purpose of warfare and destruction.

I would consider stressing that while it varies from campaign to campaign the reason orcs are evil is because of the supernatural influence of Gruumsh who created them to carry out his personal vendetta. In a way, while orcs are evil, they are also victims. I even suggested that an alternative mythology would be a coming of age ceremony (similar to a bat mitsvah or similar ceremonies) where young orcs dedicate themselves to Gruumsh. It could lead to some interesting stories.

I think blaming evil on region and religion is like saying people from the middle east who follow a specific religion are all evil radical terrorists. It's just as bad if not worse. Saying that orcs have aggressive tendencies without specifying a supernatural cause is the similar to the words used to describe so called "super predators".

It's not that I haven't thought about this, I have. I made a choice on what I think makes sense. I think it should remain a supported option because has worked and by all indications continues to work for most people. On the other hand if you want to follow Eberron's lead where they are free to be different feel free. I just find it kind of funny though, Baker still summarizes the personalities of all orcs up in a few sentences. There's nothing wrong with it IMHO, but he's still stereotyping orcs as having very similar personalities. Just like all the non human races in the PHB for that matter.

But I've probably typed this up a few dozen times now. I hate to be rude and not answer questions but I'm done. Have a good one.
 

Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
Besides, gnome skulls? Are you trying to confuse me? One evil monster wearing the skull of another evil monster doesn't really tell me much. :p
I'm pretty sure they clearly laid out the orcs were raiding gnome village and in the context of the campaign the PCs would have been told this as a means to identify the orcs who were raiders.
 

Oofta

Legend
I think one root of the problem is the ''playable orc''. The more the game pushed toward orcs has a playable folk, the more they become removed from what they were designed to be.

In an homebrewed setting I'm now designing, I want to return to monstrous orcs because I want to reduce the actual number of humanoid races (Gnolls will be ''fiends'', Orcs ''monstrosities'', kobolds to ''dragons''). I went back to the basic pig-man orcs, deeply inspired by the swines from Darkest Dungeon, Darkspawn from D.A and a Warhammer like mentality where their minds generate such an intense focus/emotion on Feed, Breed and Destroy that they are naturally gifted psionic (of the wilder type). Existence for an orc is divided in two simple categories: The Flesh and the Meat. The Flesh comprise all living things until they become the Meat, which is what the Flesh consumes to be alive.

In my lore, after a great act of violence (battle field, scene of murder etc) Grummsh is able to manifest in a rainstorm of blood, creating large pools of bloody mud. When lightning strikes the mud, it create a spawn (fleshling) that quickly grows by eating other spawns until only the strongest remains. When the bloody puddles dries, the new orcs emerge and go on to create another massacre worthy of Grummsh to create more of its kind. In a sense, orcs in this setting are like a cyst upon creation.

Orc priests act as psionic leaders, guiding a group from rampage to rampage by channeling the collective fury of the band to manifest great powers. Since orcs generations end quickly due to the brutal requirement of the Flesh and the Meat, orc clans keep an Oblex ooze in their sanctum. When a leader grows too weak or is dying, the clan feeds him to the Oblex so that the ooze can conserve its gathered knowledge and memories.

Half-orcs are usually humans that got infected by the breeding mud of the orcs and survived the infection.
Ogres are giant-kind creatures infected by the mud.

View attachment 123565View attachment 123566View attachment 123567View attachment 123568View attachment 123569

I like that! Especially the infection part, I could even see people (especially younger kids) being infected. "Honest, little Timmy was such a sweet boy and then seemingly overnight..." as an allegory to teenage tribulations.

As much as I understand why they started with the whole "monstrous ecology" books back when, I have never once had orc babies make an appearance in a campaign. As far as anyone knows in my campaign all orcs are adult (probably) males.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I think one root of the problem is the ''playable orc''. The more the game pushed toward orcs has a playable folk, the more they become removed from what they were designed to be.

In an homebrewed setting I'm now designing, I want to return to monstrous orcs because I want to reduce the actual number of humanoid races (Gnolls will be ''fiends'', Orcs ''monstrosities'', kobolds to ''dragons''). I went back to the basic pig-man orcs, deeply inspired by the swines from Darkest Dungeon, Darkspawn from D.A and a Warhammer like mentality where their minds generate such an intense focus/emotion on Feed, Breed and Destroy that they are naturally gifted psionic (of the wilder type). Existence for an orc is divided in two simple categories: The Flesh and the Meat. The Flesh comprise all living things until they become the Meat, which is what the Flesh consumes to be alive.

In my lore, after a great act of violence (battle field, scene of murder etc) Grummsh is able to manifest in a rainstorm of blood, creating large pools of bloody mud. When lightning strikes the mud, it create a spawn (fleshling) that quickly grows by eating other spawns until only the strongest remains. When the bloody puddles dries, the new orcs emerge and go on to create another massacre worthy of Grummsh to create more of its kind. In a sense, orcs in this setting are like a cyst upon creation.

Orc priests act as psionic leaders, guiding a group from rampage to rampage by channeling the collective fury of the band to manifest great powers. Since orcs generations end quickly due to the brutal requirement of the Flesh and the Meat, orc clans keep an Oblex ooze in their sanctum. When a leader grows too weak or is dying, the clan feeds him to the Oblex so that the ooze can conserve its gathered knowledge and memories.

Half-orcs are usually humans that got infected by the breeding mud of the orcs and survived the infection.
Ogres are giant-kind creatures infected by the mud.

View attachment 123565View attachment 123566View attachment 123567View attachment 123568View attachment 123569

I like your orcs.

I also think you brought up a great point - if orcs are playable maybe we shouldn’t treat them as all evil.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
Do you agree, then, that WotC should not use the trope of "appearance indicates good or evil?"
Why not? Fantasy fiction has monsters, and a lot of monsters look, well, like monsters. Even right now without any changes that's not a monolithic truth in 5E anyway. You have monstrous looking things that are G or N, and beautiful things that are E. I'll also point out that the idea of 'monsters' isn't a trope anyway. The monstrous is about as old as language at the very least, and probably much older. If you take a look at a book like The Origin of Monsters, for example, you find out how old the idea of monsters is, why they are often non-human and composite in appearance, and what cognitive science has to say about what that might mean and how it connects to the language and the spread of ideas. In short, it's a not a trope like you think.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top