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

TheSword

Legend
@TheSword help me out here. You said that alignment was great, because you can say "no evil" and people will know what that means.

Max here is saying that that isn't even alignment. Alignment never even comes into play because alignment doesn't care about Evil. In fact, I think his last sentence essentially is promoting Schrodinger's alignment where it doesn't define the action until you actually go to look at what alignment you are, which is when the action changes your alignment, which now reflects back on the action you took because of your alignment.
Not everyone who wants alignment agrees on every aspect of it, just like it’s fine that you see elements of it different to me.

Depends on the table.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Am I the only person here who ever picks up on the blatant conflict between the bolded sentence and the italics one? I ask because I see quite-close variants on this far too often...and the presence of the italics sentence makes the bolded one a lie.

Telling the players their characters will be taken away from them if said characters cross into evil* is the very definition of telling people how (in this case, mirrored as how not) to play their characters!

* - which, by the way, kinda treats the players as if they were small children - very demeaning.
Yeah. There is a lot of that going on here. People say that they don't use alignment as straitjacket and then also tell how it is an useful tool to get characters to behave like they want. This is an extreme example. Seems pretty dysfunctional to me.
 


Oofta

Legend
Am I the only person here who ever picks up on the blatant conflict between the bolded sentence and the italics one? I ask because I see quite-close variants on this far too often...and the presence of the italics sentence makes the bolded one a lie.

Telling the players their characters will be taken away from them if said characters cross into evil* is the very definition of telling people how (in this case, mirrored as how not) to play their characters!

* - which, by the way, kinda treats the players as if they were small children - very demeaning.

Players always have a choice. Sometimes that means they have to write up a different PC, either because they decided it was a good idea to jump into the pool of inky blackness or commit evil acts.

It's not demeaning to say that I don't want to run certain types of games, it's just part of the social contract. I want everyone at the game to have fun, including me, including my other players who do not want to "look the other way" when there's a monster in the group. Same way that a chaotic insane character probably isn't going to work and I ask people to not run abrasive naughty words that disrupt the rest of the party.

It wouldn't matter if it was someone committing evil acts or some other disruptive behavior. I've had chats with players about other types of behavior including being overly antagonistic or belittling other PCs when it was taken too far.

Different DMs and groups are, of course, going to have different social contracts.
 

Oofta

Legend
Yeah. There is a lot of that going on here. People say that they don't use alignment as straitjacket and then also tell how it is an useful tool to get characters to behave like they want. This is an extreme example. Seems pretty dysfunctional to me.

What I would find dysfunctional is a group so at odds with each others goals and preferences that they cannot (or should not) continue to be a group.

My games are hardly dysfunctional, they work quite well, as I get told embarrassingly often. I just set up certain rules and a social contract that will work for the majority of people, including me. That includes no evil, don't play an anti-social jerk who goes out of their way to annoy others. If you can't handle those simple rules, I'm probably not the right DM for you.

I doesn't have anything to do with alignment as defined by the game.
 

TheSword

Legend
Let’s be clear Pathfinder has had alignment in the game since inception. The organised play element which was massive, banned Evil alignments as standard. Pathfinder society was HUGE and didn’t seem at all retarded by alignment restrictions. In addition plenty of people play together for the first time under that system.

You may argue that pathfinder had more alignment based mechanics but that doesn’t change all the discussions about what is chaotic and what is lawful etc. In fact the ability to regulate the same system in Pathfinder when the mechanics do matter is one of the ways I know the system can work for 5e. Which is essentially the same game from a RP perspective.
 

What I would find dysfunctional is a group so at odds with each others goals and preferences that they cannot (or should not) continue to be a group.

My games are hardly dysfunctional, they work quite well, as I get told embarrassingly often. I just set up certain rules and a social contract that will work for the majority of people, including me. That includes no evil, don't play an anti-social jerk who goes out of their way to annoy others. If you can't handle those simple rules, I'm probably not the right DM for you.

I doesn't have anything to do with alignment as defined by the game.
Yes, exactly! The social contract, not the alignment is the important factor!
 

Oofta

Legend
Yes, exactly! The social contract, not the alignment is the important factor!

Would you allow someone in your game to roleplay sexual assault? Go into details about it?

I would not. So yes, there are limits to what I allow in my game. Your limits may be different than mine, you may not have any.

It doesn't have anything to do with alignment as defined by the game. I don't want to ever sit in another game where someone describes in detail (while obviously enjoying it) how they strangle a struggling woman and watch the light go out from her eyes.
 

Would you allow someone in your game to roleplay sexual assault? Go into details about it?

I would not. So yes, there are limits to what I allow in my game. Your limits may be different than mine, you may not have any.

It doesn't have anything to do with alignment as defined by the game. I don't want to ever sit in another game where someone describes in detail (while obviously enjoying it) how they strangle a struggling woman and watch the light go out from her eyes.
Yes, I fully agree with you on everything you say here, I just don't see how it is relevant as you seem agree that this is not about the alignment unlike the topic of the tread.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top