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

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I mean, there's always been rule 0 right? But I assume you meant something more than that.

Going through B/X I don't recall anything beyond that hinting at an exception. Instead we are reminded: "The DM should be careful to play the alignment of each monster correctly."
There are official products that have examples of creatures with alignments other than those listed in the MM. In 1e Vault of the Drow is a neutral drow with good tendencies. In 2e there's large Luigi a non-evil beholder, as well as a good demon. In 3e there are literally thousands of non-evil orcs living among humans in one of the countries. 5e makes exceptions already. 4e is the only one I don't know about, but I doubt that it's different than the other editions.

I'm sure that there were many other exceptions as well, but I don't remember them.
 



Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Can we all agree that 5e Orcs are depicted as most always evil?
Sure. Most of those races have been mostly the alignment listed. They just haven't been universally of whatever alignment listed. I mean, if you can get a good demon, you can get an any alignment anything.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Sure. Most of those races have been mostly the alignment listed. They just haven't been universally of whatever alignment listed. I mean, if you can get a good demon, you can get an any alignment anything.

Sure, but those non-confirming cases would tbe extremely rare exceptions?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
No, beholders shouldn't have alignments either. Insane manipulators seeking treasure and death, born from the dreams of other beholders, sometimes as even more twisted creatures is far more interesting than saying "chaotic evil" and walking away.

Ask 100 people if they think something that is an insane manipulator seeking treasure and death, is good or evil. I'm going to bet the vast majority choose evil. Even if descriptive behaviors are better than two letters, that doesn't mean that you can't still peg things as being good or evil.

And, here is the flip side. There are no ugly creatures that are Good. Or at least, I've never registered a single one. Especially not a humanoid looking one.

Just look to the 1e MM. The 1e brownie is LG, ugly and humanoid looking, if small. 1e cloud giants are ugly as hell, humanoid looking and half of them are NG. 1e gnomes in the MM are ugly, humanoid and good. The 1e androsphinx is pretty ugly. And I wouldn't call treants works of beauty in any edition.

I'm sure I could find examples in every edition.
 




Remove ads

Remove ads

Top