• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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



Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
Is that a bad thing?

What I'm describing is pretty much standard in any modern 4x game. Civ, Stellaris, whatever. Heck, it was around in Master's of Orion and that predates World of Warcraft by a decade or so.

This isn't a new idea, nor is it even an MMO idea.
yes, WoW is the devil, making D&D like video games is a no good awful idea, don't you remember 4e????????

/s
 

Hussar

Legend
You joke @Panda-s1 but, unfortunately, there are still lots of folks out there more than willing to launch back into fits of rage and bile at the notion of adding anything that might have 4e cooties attached.

But, let's be honest here, factions are a game element that LONG predates WoW. Like I said, Masters of Orion 2 came out in 1996 and had faction rules in it. Heck, IIRC, Ultima Online did too. I KNOW that Everquest did. The Civ games have always had faction mechanics. Remembering back, Sid Meier's Pirates! (1987, yes, boys and girls, we had video games in the 80's) had faction mechanics. Which nation state you were privateering for would affect how different towns reacted to you.
 


The excursion seems to come from sexual identity, ethnic identity, and religious identity being aspects of the identity of a reallife player, then a question about demographics to be inclusive of the diversity of players.

Going back the original post of the thread. I find this text to be the essence:

"
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.

"


So, removing alignment from the statblock of humanoid entries, is only part of the effort to remove racist tropes.
 
Last edited:

I am interested in Drow tropes.

On the one hand, Drow are iconic and even admirable in a badgirl badboy kind of way. Gygax had alot of love for these villains, and even named Drow stuff after his own kids. On the other hand, this artistic vision of the Drow blends tropes that invite concern. Evil black-skin matriarchal slave owners, and so on.

I am curious about what WotC is thinking about Drow tropes in the context of removing racist tropes.



My current way of viewing the Drow is, it is a work of art from a bygone era, that had much salience for that era. If it is problematic, maybe have a kind of historical warning that that was then but this is now, similar to the notice for Gone With the Wind.

The Lolth faction really is just one Evil faction. There are other Drow factions that are Nonevil.

One concern is, the Lolth faction is interesting. While to me, the Nonevil factions seem ... less interesting.

If I remember correctly, one faction turns blue if becoming Nonevil, and another faction turns brown if becoming Nonevil. A third faction remains the same color but becomes Neutral, having something to do with Elementals. Some reunite with the fey.

The overall impression is, becoming Nonevil results in either becoming insipid, or else completely erasing ones identity as a distinctive dark-skin elf. And the problem remains that: "black skin ≈ evil".



I would rather have a new faction that remains proudly black-skin, is fed up with all of the stupid family feuding between Lolth and Corellon, becomes Good, and does something cool and interesting. Maybe technology. I probably want them to remain earthy and matriarchal. Maybe even look to the bonobo for a model of how to be matriarchal and Good.
 
Last edited:

Eric V

Hero
I do this a lot, but...in 13th Age they always give lots (usually 13) of different approaches to things as suggestions and then leave it to the individual groups to pick one, or be inspired by them to form their own. For drow, for instance, "So there are five different ways to spin your drow. Classic spider-worshiping evil elves, elves haunted by horror from the deeps, agents of the Queen, spies-and-spiders paranoid assassins, and elven special-forces." The bestiary then goes on to give a few more examples, but the point is that it's not pinned down to an easy "always evil" alignment that ends up being mocked in a Phil and Dixie comic strip.

So, it can be done...and done well.
 

Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
You joke @Panda-s1 but, unfortunately, there are still lots of folks out there more than willing to launch back into fits of rage and bile at the notion of adding anything that might have 4e cooties attached.

But, let's be honest here, factions are a game element that LONG predates WoW. Like I said, Masters of Orion 2 came out in 1996 and had faction rules in it. Heck, IIRC, Ultima Online did too. I KNOW that Everquest did. The Civ games have always had faction mechanics. Remembering back, Sid Meier's Pirates! (1987, yes, boys and girls, we had video games in the 80's) had faction mechanics. Which nation state you were privateering for would affect how different towns reacted to you.
oh no, I know they've been around for a while, but it still feels the case that if anything feels like it came from a video game then that's no good, y'know even if that thing started in D&D, made its way into games, and then came back into D&D. I mean Planescape was a thing before World of Warcraft was an idea.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top