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

And that article was a mistake, IMO. Giving an ecology to everything, even abberant abominations created by warped corruption of the material world is a bad story telling decision.

Agreed. They should be blank stat-blocks devoid any sort of culture, organization, even alignment. Just let the DM use the stat-block as he wishes.
 

log in or register to remove this ad




Agreed. They should be blank stat-blocks devoid any sort of culture, organization, even alignment. Just let the DM use the stat-block as he wishes.
There is a middle ground, here. But also what I mean is that aberrations stop being cosmic horror elements in the game if they function like natural creatures, so giving them an understandable ecology is bad design.

If someone wants to not use them as cosmic horror elements, great, but the core rules shouldn’t treat them like a weird kind of magical bird.
 

So, you're aware of the rhetoric that is relevant to how "monsters" (which monstrous humanoids are part of, as they are in the monster manual) are portrayed as evil and recognizable as such because of their appearance. Great.

So, do you disagree with the position that it's a bad thing to depict people who look a certain way as monstrous, and thus inherently in opposition to the prettier "free peoples"?
No, I was specifically talking about monsters separate from monstrous humanoids. Perils of muti-quote I guess. Let's maybe get the quote thing straight and then we can play 20 questions about what I might have meant.
 


If that's what you believe, you should go out and really do it. You'll be surprised by the results.

I would, if it weren't for this quarantine and social distancing. Maybe I'll just post on a couple of dischords and ask people what they think.

But, your response (which I am summarizing and not using your exact words, this is a summary, not putting words in your mouth) seems to be "trust me, they ugly" and that isn't exactly compelling me to believe you
 

There is a middle ground, here. But also what I mean is that aberrations stop being cosmic horror elements in the game if they function like natural creatures, so giving them an understandable ecology is bad design.

If someone wants to not use them as cosmic horror elements, great, but the core rules shouldn’t treat them like a weird kind of magical bird.

Haven't really been following the discussion, but taking this statement out of context, I really agree with you. What you are objecting to, I think, is "naturalizing the supernatural," or rationalizing fantasy. Cosmic horror is, by its very nature, beyond the realm of the understandable; it is looking into the Void and seeing an entity that is unexplainable. When we naturalize that, we reduce its essential nature.

Or to put it in one word: midichlorians ;).
 

Haven't really been following the discussion, but taking this statement out of context, I really agree with you. What you are objecting to, I think, is "naturalizing the supernatural," or rationalizing fantasy. Cosmic horror is, by its very nature, beyond the realm of the understandable; it is looking into the Void and seeing an entity that is unexplainable. When we naturalize that, we reduce its essential nature.

Or to put it in one word: midichlorians ;).
Haha see I’m fine with midichlorians, just don’t explain Cthulhu.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top