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

pukunui

Legend
I feel like this, and the changes they’re making to races and such, stems from the fact that they originally wrote 5e as a paean to nostalgia, to reunite the fan base and bring all the old gamers who’d been put off by 4e back into the fold ... but since then, the game has exploded in popularity, which has brought in a whole slew of new fans who are saying, “Hey, wait a minute ...”

I agree that the situation is ripe for a new, or at least revised, edition. They can’t just keep errata’Ing the bad stuff away. The way things are going, they’re going to have to rewrite big chunks of the PHB and MM at some point. Might as well call it a new edition in the process, even if it’s just “5e revised and expanded” or whatever.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The rate things are going they're going to have to publish 6e urgently, just to update the lore.

If they are selling as hotcakes, why a new edition? too soon yet. And we don't know the plans about other new changes. I would bet the videogame "Curse of Strand" will arrive before.

The 6th Ed will arrive when nothing new could be added to the 5th, and there were too many changes to fix the broken things.

Other option is not to publish a 6th Ed but a different game with some changes of the d20 system, for example Gamma World, or Star*Drive. WotC should be ready when the market of TTRPGs to be saturated with too much medieval fantasy.
 

Shiroiken

Legend
Eh, this technically isn't new, except for the removal of alignment tendencies of player races in future products (which I don't agree with, but whatever). PCs have always been able to choose their alignment, regardless of racial tendencies, and it has almost zero effect in 5E anyway. As for monsters, the DM can do whatever they want anyway, and pretty much have always been able to do so. All this recent nonsense about alignment is garbage.
 

As long as WotC doesn't remove the alignments I'm ok with the changes. Just don't rule nothing out, just give the players plenty of options to customize their game.
 

Aldarc

Legend
I feel like this, and the changes they’re making to races and such, stems from the fact that they originally wrote 5e as a paean to nostalgia, to reunite the fan base and bring all the old gamers who’d been put off by 4e back into the fold ... but since then, the game has exploded in popularity, which has brought in a whole slew of new fans who are saying, “Hey, wait a minute ...”

I agree that the situation is ripe for a new, or at least revised, edition. They can’t just keep errata’Ing the bad stuff away. The way things are going, they’re going to have to rewrite big chunks of the PHB and MM at some point. Might as well call it a new edition in the process, even if it’s just “5e revised and expanded” or whatever.
I'm okay with that.
 

Doug McCrae

Legend
Jeremy Crawford:
"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."

5th edition D&D Player’s Handbook (emphasis mine):
"The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruumsh. and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god's influence.)"

Volo’s Guide to Monsters:
"No matter how domesticated an orc might seem, its blood lust flows just beneath the surface. With its instinctive love of battle and its desire to prove its strength, an orc trying to live within the confines of civilization is faced with a difficult task."
 

Seems like a big bundle of nothing, just framed in a really weird way. The messages seems to be "not all orcs are evil, or even demons if the DM wants it otherwise"... which has been the case for, like, forever, hasn't it?

The earlier way it was communicated and the absolutely terrible framing in external media seems to have people running around like headless chickens thinking they will be arrested if any PC kills an orc.

Guys, most games have the PCs plow through loads of unnamed human bandits and no one bats an eye or requires humans to be inherently evil.
 

Ath-kethin

Elder Thing
My introduction to D&D was Dragonlance; in fact, the first I ever heard of D&D was when a friend's mother wouldn't let him read my Chronicles omnibus because of its association with the game. Thanks to those books, and other works by Weis & Hickman, alignment has always made sense to me and I really like it.

I stand by the 3e alignment write-ups as being the absolute best representations ever penned. Eberron's explicit take on a more nuanced approach matched the way my group and groups like mine had been doing for years; the Eberron stuff just seemed to GET alignment in a way I hadn't seen much outside my circle.

I mourn alignment's passing. But the train keeps a-rollin'.
 
Last edited:

I'm working my way through the first campaign of Critical Role after going through the whole second campaign first. There was a moment like 60+ sessions in where a player was going to take a drastic action and Matt asked, "what's your alignment?" and the players looked at each other, confused, and asked, "what's that?" They're all great players and great actors, and alignment was completely unneeded for them to have fun, RP the hell out of everything, and put on a good show.
 

Panda-s1

Scruffy and Determined
Jeremy Crawford:
"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."

5th edition D&D Player’s Handbook (emphasis mine):
"The evil deities who created other races, though, made those races to serve them. Those races have strong inborn tendencies that match the nature of their gods. Most orcs share the violent, savage nature of the orc god, Gruumsh. and are thus inclined toward evil. Even if an orc chooses a good alignment, it struggles against its innate tendencies for its entire life. (Even half-orcs feel the lingering pull of the orc god's influence.)"

Volo’s Guide to Monsters:
"No matter how domesticated an orc might seem, its blood lust flows just beneath the surface. With its instinctive love of battle and its desire to prove its strength, an orc trying to live within the confines of civilization is faced with a difficult task."
in all fairness that does seem more like a weird lore thing than an actual rule. if it said "orcs have to be evil" or "orcs will do evil acts for no reason" that'd be different.
Guys, most games have the PCs plow through loads of unnamed human bandits and no one bats an eye or requires humans to be inherently evil.
uh, I don't think "most games" are like that anymore. like I can't remember the last time I played a game like that, and I've been playing for about 15 years now.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top