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

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
OK. reduce those words. Still: I really wish politics would get out of D&D. I'm so sick and tired of politics and control.
You've missed a few threads here, but "removing politics" from something is a political act, since it replaces contemporary politics with the politics of a (typically imagined) previous era when stuff the authors are uncomfortable talking about weren't part of the mainstream discussion. (It all still existed, of course, but not all voices were given equal weight at all points in history.)

What you're asking for is a political worldview that's more comfortable for you, which is your right, but I think unlikely for anything in 2020. This is a period of major and dramatic social and political change, similar to the late 1960s.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hate to break it to you, but that can't happen. Every fictional world contains within it the creator's (or creators') understanding/s of how the world works, which will include how societies work (or don't) which is going to include or imply their politics. Even the decision to be apolitical is an implicit statement along the lines of "the way things are is fine."

Sorry.
D&D is not a fictional world. It is a game.
 

Whizbang Dustyboots

Gnometown Hero
So you think that some minor mechanical changes and a 'frank acknowledgement' about the tone of some flavor text warrant asking everyone who plays D&D to buy all brand new core rule books? Seriously?! That's ... um ... certainly one opinion I guess. It sounds like financial suicide to me. You can change the flavor text in any printing, and the minor mechanical changes are not even remotely enough to warrant a 'new edition'. So, to address your first point, there are actually many, many, good reasons not to do that again.
The Art & Arcana book -- which everyone should at least borrow from the library or read in ebook form, even if you don't want to buy the giant coffee table book -- makes it clear that 3.5 was controversial internally and, ultimately, a bad idea for the company.
 

ccs

41st lv DM
Given the amount of arguments about alignment over the years, making sure everyone's books say the same things has value. We argue enough as it is about alignment without people having different versions of the RAW in front of them.

Even if there's not a new edition, I think we need to get a reprinting with errata of all the current books.

That still won't result in all our books saying the same thing. I don't know anyone in the real world who'd replace their current book(s) just because WoTC changed the Alignment section wording. Or added wording stating Orcs are people too or such. I don't even know anyone who'd intentionally pirate the book for that.
Sure, NEW players to our groups will have the "new" printing of the book. But the rest of us? Our books won't match theirs.
 


Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
The Art & Arcana book -- which everyone should at least borrow from the library or read in ebook form, even if you don't want to buy the giant coffee table book -- makes it clear that 3.5 was controversial internally and, ultimately, a bad idea for the company.
That matches my memory of what I heard at the time, yeah. I think edition change at this point is frankly ridiculous. They can go ahead and make some changes if they want to, even change the whole monk class, whatever, and start printing the updated version. Make the changes available as a free PDF to everyone who who already has the 5E rules. Forcing players to buy new books is putting the burden of problem solving where it doesn't belong.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
Sure, NEW players to our groups will have the "new" printing of the book. But the rest of us? Our books won't match theirs.
So? Games get errata'd all the time. What is it you think you deserve here? Just curious.
 




Remove ads

Remove ads

Top