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

Ecology of the Beholder #76 I believe, they "lay eggs" and leave them in nesting places like turtles. They are termed a species in several locations in the article.

Keep in mind that the Ecology articles are fan submitted and are not official. Also, the lore of Beholders (and many other creatures) have changed through the editions.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Keep in mind that the Ecology articles are fan submitted and are not official. Also, the lore of Beholders (and many other creatures) have changed through the editions.
Heh. Where were you during all the 4e bruhaha when people went nuts over 4e changing lore? Didn't you know that anything in Dragon is 100% official canon and we must absolutely follow that canon.

Except, well, when we don't. :erm:
 


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

Here's one vote - Djinn & Giants looks perfectly normal humanoids to me (beyond the supernatural elements that make them Djinn & Giants). Some cultural choices - Djinn are evoking Middle-Eastern styles of grooming and dress, Giants are evoking Nordic styles, but nothing ugly there, from my POV. I literally have no idea what Maxperson is going off about with those examples. I'd unstand if we were talking Ogres or Hags, but even Jackalwere's look pretty to a specific set of fandom (we live in an era post-Zootopia & Beastars; not my cup of tea, but I know there are a lot of of people into that sort of thing nowadays. And for the record, I'm completely fine with the explosion of therianthropic PC races like Leonin & Tortles).

Haha see I’m fine with midichlorians, just don’t explain Cthulhu.

I'm fine with midichlorians because they're just a "certain point of view" way of understanding an essentially unknowable concept; they're like considering Dark Matter or Dark Energy to try to describe the physics of the universe; it's a number to grasp onto in the face of a mysterious thing that in the same context George is writing about Mortis Gods and Wellsprings of the Force and Angels on Iego…).

When it comes to eldritch horror, though, yeah. Explaining the ecology of Cthulu strips away the horror. I can still get that the Force is essentially unknowable even as I try to put in in a container of power levels (even DBZ eventually said that the whole Saiyan and Frieza Empire Power Level Scouter stuff was only useful to a certain extent and essentially bunk when characters can be smarter or wiser or hide their ki or power up mid-fight or something). But giving explanation to horror is shining a light onto a dark place: useful if you want to overcome the horror, very much antithetical if you want to mire your PCs in it.


Heh. Where were you during all the 4e bruhaha when people went nuts over 4e changing lore? Didn't you know that anything in Dragon is 100% official canon and we must absolutely follow that canon.

Except, well, when we don't. :erm:

Honestly, 4e was able to sidestep a lot of related issues by considering if and where sacred cows should be slaughtered rather than kept, and from my opinion, they came to a lot of innovative ideas that resonate in ways that carryover franchise tropes from the 70s did not. WotC may have overdone it with 4e in the face of a fanbase that was inherently resistant to the slaughtering of sacred cows, which is how we get to today.

5e has a much larger fandom in 2020 than it had during the playtesting phase of 2012-2014, and the folks who were invested in shepherding D&D to it's current edition at that time do not reflect necessarily the state of the fandom as a whole today (it's a lot more diverse a fandom, for example). Where WotC goes from here really depends on how much support there is from current players and from potential new markets for the game to make (or avoid making) changes to the game in reaction to the politics of today.
 

I'm fine with midichlorians because they're just a "certain point of view" way of understanding an essentially unknowable concept; they're like considering Dark Matter or Dark Energy to try to describe the physics of the universe; it's a number to grasp onto in the face of a mysterious thing that in the same context George is writing about Mortis Gods and Wellsprings of the Force and Angels on Iego…).

When it comes to eldritch horror, though, yeah. Explaining the ecology of Cthulu strips away the horror. I can still get that the Force is essentially unknowable even as I try to put in in a container of power levels (even DBZ eventually said that the whole Saiyan and Frieza Empire Power Level Scouter stuff was only useful to a certain extent and essentially bunk when characters can be smarter or wiser or hide their ki or power up mid-fight or something). But giving explanation to horror is shining a light onto a dark place: useful if you want to overcome the horror, very much antithetical if you want to mire your PCs in it.
Yep. Midichlorians might be what gives a creature force powers, or it might just be that the Jedi scientists are wrong about that and all midichlorians do is propagate more in creatures with greater force sensitivity. And the whole thing is easy to ignore regardless.

The idea of beholders laying eggs is just...so silly to me, and makes me glad I’d never read that article. I much prefer the idea that they are created spontaneously, or from the nightmares of existing beholders.
 

CALLED IT! Goodbye alignment, hello moral subjectivity. The opinion pieces are starting to lay the foundation for it.


... Before you say it, yes, I'm aware that Basic only had Law/Neutrality/Chaos. But that alignment axis has been minor at best, treated as stand-ins for good and evil at worst. It's not like there has been great amounts of time spent in that conflict, Slaad and Modrons have never been a big deal outside Planescape and the planetouched for law and chaos are mostly forgetten grid fillers. The closest to a major element Law and Chaos play is the Blood War, and even then both teams are defined by Evil first, Law or Chaos second.

Alignment as a concept is dead rule walking.
 

The idea of beholders laying eggs is just...so silly to me, and makes me glad I’d never read that article. I much prefer the idea that they are created spontaneously, or from the nightmares of existing beholders.
Complete Guide to Beholders had another explanation, similar to the Neogi conceptually. At some point some beholders go off to be closer to the Void (a big concept in CGtB) and swell up becoming incubators that periodically pull in the eyeballs from their eye stalks, cocoon them then inside the stalks, and have them use the eye stalks of the incubator as birth canals for fully adult fully formed new beholders.

Lore varies. I have not read the Lords of Madness or I, Tyrant versions yet but I find the 5e nightmare concept strikes the best chord for me so far.
 

CALLED IT! Goodbye alignment, hello moral subjectivity. The opinion pieces are starting to lay the foundation for it.


... Before you say it, yes, I'm aware that Basic only had Law/Neutrality/Chaos. But that alignment axis has been minor at best, treated as stand-ins for good and evil at worst. It's not like there has been great amounts of time spent in that conflict, Slaad and Modrons have never been a big deal outside Planescape and the planetouched for law and chaos are mostly forgetten grid fillers. The closest to a major element Law and Chaos play is the Blood War, and even then both teams are defined by Evil first, Law or Chaos second.

Alignment as a concept is dead rule walking.

And I say, good riddance. It's been one of the biggest things holding D&D back.

That said, this is just a reaction fro CBR questioning the WotC decisions. CBR, like its sibling sites Screenrant or Gamerant, is well known for being mostly opinion pieces and for what "news" it does cover, it has a lot of speculation and/or flat out wrong information. This isn't an further announcement from WotC, from what I can tell.
 
Last edited:

CALLED IT! Goodbye alignment, hello moral subjectivity. The opinion pieces are starting to lay the foundation for it.


... Before you say it, yes, I'm aware that Basic only had Law/Neutrality/Chaos. But that alignment axis has been minor at best, treated as stand-ins for good and evil at worst. It's not like there has been great amounts of time spent in that conflict, Slaad and Modrons have never been a big deal outside Planescape and the planetouched for law and chaos are mostly forgetten grid fillers. The closest to a major element Law and Chaos play is the Blood War, and even then both teams are defined by Evil first, Law or Chaos second.

Alignment as a concept is dead rule walking.

Meh. It's an opinion piece and doesn't really mean anything. As far as D&D, it's a game, it's fantasy, alignment has little or no mechanical impact in 5E. It does not and has never meant that evil NPCs can't believe they are doing the right thing, that's been a common trope in D&D pretty much forever.

The concept of good vs evil is everywhere in popular entertainment for a reason. It appeals to a wide spectrum of people, I think it would be a mistake to get rid of it. Time will tell whether it ever impacts a core book or if it's just possible change to future campaign books.
 

CALLED IT! Goodbye alignment, hello moral subjectivity. The opinion pieces are starting to lay the foundation for it.


... Before you say it, yes, I'm aware that Basic only had Law/Neutrality/Chaos. But that alignment axis has been minor at best, treated as stand-ins for good and evil at worst. It's not like there has been great amounts of time spent in that conflict, Slaad and Modrons have never been a big deal outside Planescape and the planetouched for law and chaos are mostly forgetten grid fillers. The closest to a major element Law and Chaos play is the Blood War, and even then both teams are defined by Evil first, Law or Chaos second.

Alignment as a concept is dead rule walking.
Did you actually read the article?

I mean, at it's "worst" the opinion piece says "The end of Evil races proves that Dungeons & Dragons needs to move away from concepts of cosmic good and evil, while focusing more on true good and evil: selflessness vs. selfishness. ".

Still, though, the author defines good and evil in concrete terms: selflessness vs. selfishness.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top