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

BookTenTiger

He / Him
So what's wrong with orcs always being evil?

I know you are frustrated with typing the same thing over and over again, and so am I. I honestly think you can argue my side for this one.

But there's nothing new here other than people telling me that the "correct" way is for orcs to have any alignment while dodging questions about whether beholders or other monsters should have any alignment.

I don't think anyone has said their way is "correct!" We are having this discussion, though, because Wizards of the Coast has started talking about why some tropes in D&D should be changed!

And heck yeah, let's take out mandatory alignments for all creatures! Let's replace it with something! How about "motivations?"

A beholder's motivation could be "greed," "power," etc.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oofta

Legend
Orcs have been playable with enough regularity that they cannot be always evil. Its simply that. If you're a playable race, you have free will. Ergo, you cannot be always anything.

Orcs aren't just 'oh they're evil'. They're orcs. You use orcs when you need orcs. You use humans when you need humans. Their entire character is not just "Evil", there's more to it


I can say, with 100% certainty, this is the first time I have ever seen orcs described as 'a rage filled dark version of humanity bent on destruction of all other races'. This doesn't even fit with established D&D lore where orcs tend towards being pretty chill on the race side of things so long as they fit into the "Might makes right" worldview they subscribe to.


Unless its a Spectator, in which case its a rather chill floating beach ball who can make you meals and just wants you to not touch the thing he's here to guard. Or its a Gas Spore and is actually a cleverly disguised mushroom

They've been playable in some campaigns. Not all. So? Read the description of orcs. They were created by Gruumsh to wage eternal war against the creations of the other gods because he was pissed.

Anything new here, anything at all? Other than "I want orcs to be any alignment"? Which, cool. Do that. Have fun.
 

Hussar

Legend
So what's wrong with orcs always being evil? I agree you can have orcs of all alignments, but for me personally I would have no use for orcs. That tribe of barbarians that threatens civilization? They become humans.

Absolutely nothing. In your campaign, having orcs being always evil is perfectly fine. But, why can orc ONLY be always evil? What is gained?

But there's nothing new here other than people telling me that the "correct" way is for orcs to have any alignment while dodging questions about whether beholders or other monsters should have any alignment.

Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having your orcs be always evil. However, since orc is a pretty popular race for PC play, the always evil tag becomes somewhat problematic. Beholders have never been a PC race, so, it's not an issue.

Who is telling you that it's impossible for the orcs in your campaign to be "always evil"? Can you point to a SINGLE example of anyone doing that? You claim that people are telling you about the "correct" orcs. Can you point to specific examples please? Because, @Oofta, all I'm seeing is you creating arguments where none exist. Adding the idea that orcs are not always evil, does not preclude always evil orcs. No one, as far as I can see, is telling you to do anything in your own campaign.

So, why are you arguing that people are telling you what to do?
 


Mecheon

Sacabambaspis
They've been playable in some campaigns. Not all. So? Read the description of orcs. They were created by Gruumsh to wage eternal war against the creations of the other gods because he was pissed.
Right back at you, mate. That's only one universe's interpretation of how they came to be. Also technically not accurate as there's at least one group of orcs in FR who have nothing to do with Gruumsh at all and come from another dimension. Probably more. FR's a mess.

Anything new here, anything at all? Other than "I want orcs to be any alignment"? Which, cool. Do that. Have fun.
The game (Which honestly has supported it in the past for years but backtracked hard in 5E) should support it as well. Also, the very concept of "Always X" races is laughably stupid from a world-building perspective and I'm opposed to it in general
 

It depends upon the assumptions of the campaign and setting. My books are currently packed away, so don't know what the RAW say on this (if anything), but I still think it is campaign-based. No reason why a DM couldn't design humanoids that lack free will, or have it only in a rudimentary manner.

And that doesn't even touch into real-world philosophies around the nature of "free will" and to what degree it exists. But maybe not the right time and place ;).

What you say seems to relate to what Crawford said. The rules in Monster Manual, tell the DM to alter the alignment for any special situation.

So, if the MM says the Orc is a Humanoid, DM discretion can still assign an Evil alignment to every Orc, per Rules-As-Written.
 
Last edited:

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.
Most of the time the difference between freespeech and hatespeech is obvious.

But there are corner cases that are "brain-hurty". For these special cases ... well that is why we have a legal system and case law.


Regarding D&D products, including the OA, I agree there is no hate. The offensiveness has much to do with an earlier era, including problematic assumptions, cultural alienation, and "well-meaning" tone-deafness.

One of the forumers explained how nicknaming a Japanese person "Ninja", for no other reason than being Japanese, was an example of something that would make one uncomfortable. Even tho the nicknamer probably admires ninjas and means it as complement, one can see how racist it is to do that.

So the first time is problematic and innocent. But after being told that the nickname was offensive, if the nicknamer kept on doing anyway, it could become a kind of hateful racial slur.

So something less serious can become more serious if it persists.



I agree that "pastiche" can allow unconscious racist tropes to resurface in new ways.
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Anything new here, anything at all? Other than "I want orcs to be any alignment"? Which, cool. Do that. Have fun.

Look, that plays both ways. We can easily turn that around:

Anything new here, anything at all? Other than "I want orcs to be inherently always evil"? Which, cool. Do that. Have fun.

What WotC is doing (removing default alignments to humanoids and, instead, placing on the individual) allows for both play styles.
 

Hussar

Legend
They've been playable in some campaigns. Not all. So? Read the description of orcs. They were created by Gruumsh to wage eternal war against the creations of the other gods because he was pissed.

Anything new here, anything at all? Other than "I want orcs to be any alignment"? Which, cool. Do that. Have fun.

Actually, that's inaccurate @Oofta. The Monster Manual (5e) disagrees with you on the creation bit.

The Monster Manual states that Gruumsh had already created the orc race, but, when it came time to find a home for them, he found that all the other races had already claimed all the territory. So, Gruumsh proclaimed that his orcs would take what the other races had denied him. So, no, orcs were not created to wage eternal war. And, let's be honest here, the description of what happened may not be entirely reliable, as, well, this is the orc's telling of it. After all, it states that orcs worship Gruumsh, but, since there are other gods in the orc pantheon, some orcs must worship those other gods. Which means that the creation story presented does have some holes in it.

It's entirely plausible that there are groups of orcs that avoided Gruumsh's conscription into eternal war. After all, it flat out states that orcs are roving pillagers, except, in rare circumstances, when they hold onto land for lengthy periods of time. The description right in the Monster Manual contains a number of contradictions.

Could it possibly be that your interpretation of the Monster Manual might not also contain contradictions?
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
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.
Yes, and it's a universal truth that the raiding of gnome villages is of benefit to any world.

And double-benefit for the PCs who kill the orcs before they start raiding decent folk, as they get the orcs' loot and the gnomes' loot too.

:)
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top