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.

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

The Forgotten Realms uses 1e flavors and cosmic assumptions, though. They call them Gold Elves and Moon Elves, but they are the 1e High and Grey elves. The use the great tree instead of the great wheel, but aside from souls going to wait for Kelemvor, the planes are just the abyss and other 1e planes. I think you are projecting more FR into the PHB than is there. I love the Realms and have run it since 1e, and I don't see the same levels of Realms influence that you do.

I also don't see why it's at all hard to just use the 5e mechanics, tossing the fluff out whole cloth and just use whatever fluff you decide to world build for everything.
If you like the way it is. Then obviously, you are less able to understand why other people might want to change it, and find it difficult to change.

That is why sexism and racism persists. The people who dont experience the pain, think everything is fine.

For me, Forgotten Realms is painful.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I really like the way Pratchett put it in Hogfather:

----
"All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.
----
Pratchett was/is genius. Hilarious genius.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
If you like the way it is. Then obviously, you are less able to understand why other people might want to change it, and find it difficult to change.

I don't care why you want to change it. I change rules and fluff left, right and center in my game. I even change the Realms. I don't like 5e, because it is the Realms. I simply like 5e. When I want to change fluff, it takes me a small fraction of a second to drop the fluff and then come up with my own. The same amount of time that it would take me if there was no/minimal fluff and I had to come up with my own. The difference is that the stuff I like can just stay there, which isn't possible with no/minimal fluff. I don't have time to write fluff for everything.

For me, Forgotten Realms is painful.
Then drop it and world build.
 

I don't care why you want to change it. I change rules and fluff left, right and center in my game. I even change the Realms. I don't like 5e, because it is the Realms. I simply like 5e. When I want to change fluff, it takes me a small fraction of a second to drop the fluff and then come up with my own. The same amount of time that it would take me if there was no/minimal fluff and I had to come up with my own. The difference is that the stuff I like can just stay there, which isn't possible with no/minimal fluff. I don't have time to write fluff for everything.


Then drop it and world build.
Just tell minorities to stop suffering. Let them build their own world. Let them eat cake.
 


FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Then drop it and world build.

Yea. All it would take to get people to stop playing in forgotten realms is to make a better setting than forgotten realms for them to play in! You don't have to take away the dogs bone. Give him a better bone and he'll let go the first ;)

Personally I dislike forgotten realms. It's not a setting that particularly appeals to me. But the whole idea of fantasy is that we can play in whatever world we want and that those worlds can have vastly different rules and truths than the real world.
 

@Maxperson.

I am telling you.

I NEED FLAVORLESS CUSTOMIZABLE RULES.

THAT IS WHAT I NEED.

In order to make worldbuilding less painful.

I will say it ten thousand times.

Maybe you will hear me, if I say it ten thousand and one times.
 


Remathilis

Legend
The problem is. The 5e Forgotten Realms setting guide, officially named the Players Handbook, repeats the Forgotten Realms flavors, narratives, and cosmic assumptions, over and over and over again, everywhere, in spells, in planar descriptions, in class descriptions, in race origins, and so on. It is almost impossible to open to any page without Forgotten Realms flavor baked heavily into the sentences.

Ah yes, I recall all of those Forgotten Realms specific references. Like Melf's Acid Arrow, Tenser's Floating Disc, and Modenkainen's Faithful Hound. Or The Quiver or Ehlonna and Boccob's Blessed Book. The Faerunian artifacts like the Orb of Dragonkind and the Hand/Eye of Venca. The intro story referencing that classic Faerun Villain Strahd Von Zarovich, or the example fighter/rogue in the personality section Tika. Or all the reference to Faerunian gods in the cleric domains like Thor, Pelor, The Silver Flame, and Hades. Or the example subraces the Qualentsi and Silvanesti elves or the sidebar on the Faerun-monsters Draconians. I think you get the picture.

It's been a real shame WotC hasn't made any products that expand beyond Forgotten Realms. Imagine if they could have placed Ghosts of Saltmarsh in Greyhawk, or could do a Ravenloft module again? Or if they could put out books for settings like Eberron, or even branded settings like Critical Role's Wildemount or Magic: The Gathering's Theros and Ravnica? It's a real shame 5e is so marred to the Realms as to not allow any of that to exist.

Damn shame, damn shame.
 

Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top