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

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
And while we are on the Forgotten Realms is racist tangent, I'd like to point out that there are areas of the Realms where orcs are not all evil and are part of the population living alongside humans in cities.

Nice. I'm curious about the lore that allowed that to happen?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Nice. I'm curious about the lore that allowed that to happen?

The Zhents came to the aid of a country called Thesk against the Tuigan(Mongol) horde and when they withdrew, they left many of their orc soldiers behind. Hundreds of those orcs have been assimilated into Thesk society and many even serve in Thesk garrisons, trusted with defending the nation. Orcs also live along side humans in Thay and Zhentil keep, but I suspect those aren't the nice kind of orcs.

The Unapproachable East lists the population of Theskan cities at anywhere from 10-18% orc and half orc, with the orc populations being the majority of the numbers. For example Phsant, with a population of 21,564 is 74% Human, 12% Orc, 6% Half-Orc, 2% Dwarf, 2% Gnome, 2% Half-elf and 2% Halfling. Captain Grattz(low points for originality) is the 14th level Fighter, LN captain of the guard an leader of the town's orcs.
 

Mercurius

Legend
The infrequency of images of gay male couples in D&D is painful to me. (Extremely.)

How many images of couples of any kind are depicted? Some, but not that many. Now consider that ~5% of the US population is self-identified as LGBT, and about half or less of those are male. Meaning, 1 in 40 or less of all couples in the US are gay men. So infrequency makes sense from a purely demographic, representation point of view.

That said, WotC has increased the frequency of LGBT people in D&D products. As our culture becomes more and more accepting, I have no doubt that this will continue.

The ubiquity of the objectively true polytheistic religion in D&D is painful to me. (Extremely.)

I'm not sure what your issue is here. That D&D doesn't offer monotheistic religions? That there is no atheism? D&D is based on premodern civilization, and the vast majority of premodern cultures were roughly polytheistic in nature. But even the Forgotten Realms has an "overgod" in Ao. And of course there's no reason that you cannot customize religions to suit your fancy.

When women, or transgenders, or East Asians, or Black Americans, say there are experiences of pain within the default setting of 5e, I believe them.

I believe them, too. That doesn't mean I agree with their interpretation. There are also people of every stripe--including the demographic identifiers you mention--who don't experience pain with regards to the default setting of 5E, because they interpret things differently and/or don't assign the same weight to fantasy ideas as those who do experience pain.
 

Oofta

Legend
...
I'm not sure what your issue is here. That D&D doesn't offer monotheistic religions? That there is no atheism? D&D is based on premodern civilization, and the vast majority of premodern cultures were roughly polytheistic in nature. But even the Forgotten Realms has an "overgod" in Ao. And of course there's no reason that you cannot customize religions to suit your fancy.
...

Or have an atheist who believes that the gods are effectively magical constructs built and maintained by people worshipping an ideal. It explained why the gods mirrored the people that worshiped them. I think that was my 3rd (4th?) PC I ever came up with.
 


@Mercurius

Suppose hypothetically, 5% of the human population is exclusively gay. Oppositely, 5% of the human population is exclusively straight.

The majority of the human population is bisexual, on a continuum from mostly gay to mostly straight. You can move that line between gay and straight, back and forth, anywhere you want, depending on cultural expectations.

Once upon a time, people believed that the earth was flat. But it became obvious the earth is more complex, a sphere.

Now it is obvious that human sexuality is complex and defies simplistic tropes.

So trying to explain to people who are in pain, why "heterosexual supremacism" is correct, is both incorrect and a waste of breath.



And I only spoke about orientation.

I dont really understand transgender, or how transgender fits into human sexuality. Transgenders are obviously part of humanity since prehistoric times, existing in every ancient culture. When hunter-gatherers split into feminine gatherers and masculine hunters, there were men who remained with the gatherers and women who went off with the hunters. Humans evolved this way because the adaption promoted the survival of the human species.

Whether I understand transgender or not, if a human who looks at first glance like a man tells they are a woman. I believe them. I take them at their word. Who am I to doubt them? They are as human as I am. Why would they bother saying something like that, if it wasnt true?

I am not black. I am unsure what the needs of the black communities are. But if what many black people are saying seems doable. Who am I to doubt them? I want to be an ally of black communities. Give black persons breathing room to be themselves, however they see it.
 

Sexual identity, ethnic identity, religious identity, are fundamental aspects of a reallife human.

The recent announcement by Crawford gives me hope.

If D&D 5e really will update the mechanics and flavors to be more inclusive, to allow reallife players to feel more personally comfortable with the tropes of the game, I welcome the update whole-heartedly.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
@Mercurius

Suppose hypothetically, 5% of the human population is exclusively gay. Oppositely, 5% of the human population is exclusively straight.

The majority of the human population is bisexual, on a continuum from mostly gay to mostly straight. You can move that line between gay and straight, back and forth, anywhere you want, depending on cultural expectations.

Once upon a time, people believed that the earth was flat. But it became obvious the earth is more complex, a sphere.

Now it is obvious that human sexuality is complex and defies simplistic tropes.

So trying to explain to people who are in pain, why "heterosexual supremacism" is correct, is both incorrect and a waste of breath.



And I only spoke about orientation.

I dont really understand transgender, or how transgender fits into human sexuality. Transgenders are obviously part of humanity since prehistoric times, existing in every ancient culture. When hunter-gatherers split into feminine gatherers and masculine hunters, there were men who remained with the gatherers and women who went off with the hunters. Humans evolved this way because the adaption promoted the survival of the human species.

Whether I understand transgender or not, if a human who looks at first glance like a man tells they are a woman. I believe them. I take them at their word. Who am I to doubt them? They are as human as I am. Why would they bother saying something like that, if it wasnt true?

I am not black. I am unsure what the needs of the black communities are. But if what many black people are saying seems doable. Who am I to doubt them? I want to be an ally of black communities. Give black persons breathing room to be themselves, however they see it.

I'm finding it impossible to respond to this post without breaking the forum rules. So I will simply say I disagree.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I NEED FLAVORLESS CUSTOMIZABLE RULES.

THAT IS WHAT I NEED.
Sorry to break this to you, but on this you ain't ever gonna get what you want.

There has to be some sort of flavour for a whole number of reasons:

--- to provide in-fiction context to a rule, or an example of its in-fiction effect
--- to explain how something in the rules came to be how-what it is
--- so the books are easier to read - and thus more appealing - than textbooks or instruction manuals (this is the most important one!)
--- to, in a broad sense, give a feeling of difference from the real world
--- to give DMs looking to add their own flavour a place to start, and some ideas what to do-keep-change-discard

The ubiquity of the objectively true polytheistic religion in D&D is painful to me. (Extremely.)
Sorry again, but here's another one you ain't gonna get; if for no other reason than given the current climate it'd likely be impossible to present any sort of fantasy monotheistic religion without drawing protests of misrepresentation from members of one or more currently-established real-world monotheistic religons.
 

ZeshinX

Adventurer
Or have an atheist who believes that the gods are effectively magical constructs built and maintained by people worshipping an ideal. It explained why the gods mirrored the people that worshiped them. I think that was my 3rd (4th?) PC I ever came up with.

I actually introduced an organization of atheists/agnostics for my game (set in the Realms during 3.x). They certainly believed (or outright knew) the gods existed, as there were plenty of examples of their power, presence and influence upon Faerun (shortly after the Time of Troubles being the group's genesis). They felt the gods were not worth worshipping, as more often than not, in their views, their mortal followers and mortals in general were little more than pawns and puppets to be used for their various ecclesiastical plots which inevitably bring ruinous consequences upon the mortal realm (the many wild and dead magic zones post-ToT being prime examples).

They were led by an enigmatic being known as The Apostate. A being always dressed in a hooded robe that hid any hint of gender, and wore a mainly featureless mask that appeared nominally human (with no visible openings for eyes, nose or mouth, though the shapes of each were present)...and their voice was a collective of voices, male and female.

They were a peaceful and, by a perceived necessity, nomadic group (they were never told to leave or asked to stay...but often there was a general unease about them from the various local populaces they encountered). The Apostate and other ranking members of the group taught followers techniques in psionics, as a means to show one did not require the gods to work feats of "magic" (I used the psionics are different approach) and as a means to offer various services to earn themselves a modest living.

My group of players never interacted all that much with them, but they would show up from time to time in the game.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top