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
So, why would a society being evil because it's ideology is evil rather that the hackneyed idea that they are evil because their species is somehow inherently evil a big change when the end result doesn't actually change the society being evil?

I think you just explained the big difference.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

SavageCole

Punk Rock Warlord
Am I the only person who would rejoice for the end of terribly constructed alignment (and Myers-Briggs) memes?

I hear you, but there are people who enjoy them, so why crap on their parade? I think it is a good to remember that the writers and actors portraying these characters were able to bring them to life, to tell their stories, most likely without having an alignment table and descriptions to guide them. Obviously, as D&D players and GMs we could too.

Let’s get real though. I get those who feel something precious is being taken away from them due to socio-political tides. IMO the fact that alignment is so easy a thing to ignore if you don’t want it in your game makes it seem all the more contentious to remove from the rulebooks. Most of the objections I see to Alignment’s removal aren’t really about defending its mechanical importance. The underlying and sometimes overt motive is that its seems like the current stewards of a game that helped many form an identity are alienating them by taking a socio-political stance. This stings some who feel a part of the family that nurtured and helped reinvigorate the game when 5e came around. These people are an important part of the D&D customer base, and in my opinion a part of our family. It’s tough for me seeing our community dividing the way it is, and some of the recent changes are divisive. At the end of the day, I know that creative evolution is inevitable and fans come and go. The good thing is that the passionate response from people defending evil drow & orcs, and speaking out against removing Oriental Adventures is that these members of our D&D family do not want to be pushed away from the game they love. Anyway, I’m done rambling and trying to read the hearts of others.
 


Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
I think you just explained the big difference.
Sure, I guess moving from two dimensional and squicky to three dimensional and less squicky is a big change. But is one that people (who don't engage in killing baby orcs) are really going to complain (or even really notice) about when they can still fight evil orcs (just not justify killing their children)?

And the thing is, orcs and drow were not inherently, biologically evil in the first place. Orcs and drow (and other sapient "evil" species) have have non-evil examples throughout the editions. So, there really isn't even a change here, it's just a point to clearly express what's always been in the game.
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Mod Note:

This was disrespectful, and misogynistic language to boot. How about you not speak like that to anyone on these boards, ever again? Thanks.
My apologies to all involved. That was truly tastless of me, and though I had no intention of being misogynistic I could have used a better idiom (like "cool your jets") to better convey what my intention was. I screwed up, and again, I apologise.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
In Star Wars, the First Order is Lawful Evil because its IDEOLOGY is Lawful Evil. The ideology is Lawful because of prioritizing the group over the individual, maintaining social expectations, organizational infrastructure, and collective obligations and duties.

Okay, but where does Chaos come in?

Every society has social expectations, collective obligations and duties, and organized infrastructure. That is literally the definition of society. So, can a chaotic society even exist?

Probably not, "society" and "cvilization" are often portrayed as Lawful, with the wilds being where chaos is... except spirits and fey of the wild also have rules, social expectations, organized infrastructure and the like. It is different from ours, but it is still there.

This might be a personal problem, but I've never been able to find a way to get chaotic enough that it would move out of neutral. Law and Order are so foundational to how the world works that like Yin and Yang, there is always a piece of it in Chaos. But where these dividing lines should be between the three colours of the continuum, I just don't know.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
So, why would a society being evil because it's ideology is evil rather that the hackneyed idea that they are evil because their species is somehow inherently evil a big change when the end result doesn't actually change the society being evil?
Why would going from currency has inherent value of the metals used, to currency has value that we assign these pieces of paper be a major change when the end result is the same?

The journey is often more important than the destination.
 

the Jester

Legend
Sure, I guess moving from two dimensional and squicky to three dimensional and less squicky is a big change. But is one that people (who don't engage in killing baby orcs) are really going to complain (or even really notice) about when they can still fight evil orcs (just not justify killing their children)?

I think it's a change that people who have been affected by racist stereotypes might notice. I'm a white guy in the US, so I have been fortunate enough to not be one of those people, so I'm just trying to look at it through their eyes, so I might be wrong- but I am pretty sure it is a step in the right direction. (Or rather, a step back in the right direction- I feel like 3e's "often/usually/always" alignment descriptors were already pretty close to what we're going to see.)
 


Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Okay, but where does Chaos come in?

Every society has social expectations, collective obligations and duties, and organized infrastructure. That is literally the definition of society. So, can a chaotic society even exist?

I know a few anarchists and libertarians that think so. They haven't convinced me, though
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top