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 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.

 

[Oofta]

Unless Good and Evil are explicitly laid out in detail in the core books, they might as well subjective. In-universe Good and Evil might be objective, but if nobody at the out-of-universe table can agree on what it is, the whole point is moot.

Once again, you can't dismiss out-of-universe critiques with in-universe justifications.

I would say that like many things in D&D, the details should be decided by the DM and the group. I don't want WOTC to publish a philosophy 101 course on the merits of methods to adjudicate good and evil.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

No I didnt. I stated my own view is that Natural Law does not exist in reality. I'm not saying morality is easy to determine at all; its wholly subjective and contextual.

Sorry, I was unclear. When I said the "nature of morality" I was referring to the metaethical question of whether morality is subjective or objective (or something else or whether those labels are even coherent or...), not the ethical question of how to determine morality. This metaethical question is what remains a hard problem -- although, of course, it makes the other question even harder by extension.

In the game that position changes. We have a DM who can say (for example) action X is morally good (or morally evil). Seeing as the view seems to be in DnD that alignment is a cosmic objective force (as in there are outer planes comprised of the stuff, where if the inhabitants change alignment, they cease being the type of inhabitants of that plane) then its largely up to the DM to determine what Good and Evil 'are'.

The game seems to have a general assumption that 'altruism, mercy, compassion, charity' are moral goods, and 'harming others' is a moral wrong (evil). This has remained reasonably consistent throughout the editions, by implication and sometimes even express words in works.

Absolutely agreed. The presence of a DM makes digressions into the weeds of moral philosophy, however fun they may be for my very... specific sort of mind, basically irrelevant for the practical purposes of this game. There's a caveat that the players need to buy into the DM's vision for the campaign, but that's true of every aspect of it, not just their calls on good and evil.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I would say that like many things in D&D, the details should be decided by the DM and the group. I don't want WOTC to publish a philosophy 101 course on the merits of methods to adjudicate good and evil.

You realize that was the point right? That the game table is taking their own morality, and then codifying it as absolute at the table.

And so, even if they say that the morality is absolute, it is actually relative, because it is relative to the table and their interpretations.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It would be except for being it blatantly wrong. Good and Evil aren't that subjective in D&D.

Of course they are. Just like in real life. In D&D, the party goes and kills that goblin tribe. Good aligned PCs. Defined by an assumption (goblins are evil and need to be killed) made by other people who look just like the PCs, and not the goblins.

But to the goblins, who may have done nothing against the humans, would view it very differently. A group of humans invaded and wiped out the village and ransacked anything valuable. So the neighboring tribe took up arms to defend their people and attacked the PCs.

to the PCs, they are good for destroying evil goblins. To the goblins, they are good for destroying evil PCs. Entirely subjective depending on what side you're on and who makes up the rules.

D&D has tried to simplify that by making an entire species inherently and always evil, or always good, because it's a game and no one wants moral dilemmas in their game. But it is still very much subjective, based on who is playing the game. For the record, I don't think the game needs to define what is good vs evil either, and let the table decide. But good and evil are very much subjective within the game. It happens all the time; players engaging in what would normally be bad behavior (stealing, thievery, murder, breaking entering, bullying, greed, etc) but try to justify it for the greater mission. How many times does a PC get into an argument with an NPC over the PC's behavior or NPCs behavior when they both think they are in the right? Pretty often.

 

[jsaving]

Depending on your gaming table, you definitely see players justify evil behavior by claiming it is being done for the greater good. But the claims don't actually make it so.

 

[Raduin711]

Just requires an evil werewolf, and it plays out exactly like that. Well, mostly. The werewolf is evil at all times in 5e, far as I can tell. And they are supernaturally evil, not human evil, so they are more likely, IMO, to go out of their way to bring about evil ends, to try to destroy communities, to stoke fear and distrust, to find their kill from the night before and display it to invoke maximum terror in the townsfolk, etc.

"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.

If I am reading this right, then the game doesn't even really prescribe an alignment change for contracting lycanthropy. It just says "If you are going to have your players encounter a werewolf, might I suggest an Evil alignment?"

And without an alignment mandate, the threat of lycanthropy is kind of nil. It's not even a curse.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Morality can't subjetive. I trust nobody who says it. If it was, then the honor killing could be tolerated. Do you want that? The comics are full with villain who think the morality is subjetive, and there are lots of sci-fi stories about artificial intelligences who can't understand the difference between good and evil, causing serious troubles. Can't you understand the meaning of the respect for the human dignity as basis of our rights as people, as citizens? In Resident Evil 5 the famous antagonist Albert Wesker wanted to start an epidemic with Umbrella Corp's biological weapons in Africa to "clean the planet". Aren't you going to say that was wicked? The little Stark child has discovered something and now he knows too much. To avoid he to tell it, why not to throw him out the window "the things I do for love". Sorry, don't blame me if your PCs' souls when these died they are sent to the infernal planes, it's not my fault, but yours.

Locke didn't talk about natural law, but like a better option, or lesser bad, compared to the death penalty. In the past not all said it was right but it couldn't be avoided.

In the end episode "the march of the freedom" of Hercules: the legendary journeys (Lucy Liu played a role there) a slave dealer as punishment is sold as slave to receive his own medicine.

 

[R_Chance]

Depending on your gaming table, you definitely see players justify evil behavior by claiming it is being done for the greater good. But the claims don't actually make it so.

I've had players claim their actions are "good" (say destroying a Goblin warren) because they serve a greater good. I always grin and say "No, evil". Then I explain that they may consider it "necessary", and revenge may be the cause, but that does not make it good, just a "necessary evil" (at best). The good vs. evil thing is easier if you just look at the actions. Goblins destroying a village and killing everybody in it: evil. Adventurers going into a Goblin warren and killing everybody in it: evil. It doesn't matter who did it first, the action can be judged in isolation. Now, if one side is the aggressor and the other retaliates by destroying the aggressors military ability: not evil. May be good or not depending. Actions usually have causes, the reason behind an action doesn't make the action good or evil. The act itself does. My 2 cp.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If I am reading this right, then the game doesn't even really prescribe an alignment change for contracting lycanthropy. It just says "If you are going to have your players encounter a werewolf, might I suggest an Evil alignment?"

And without an alignment mandate, the threat of lycanthropy is kind of nil. It's not even a curse.

You’re leaping incredible distances from what I said to a conclusion that has nothing at all to do with what I said.

In the 5e rules, you gain the alignment of the were that turns you.

There have always been “noble werewolves”. If one bites you, you become a loner of the Lawful Good alignment, regardless of who you were before. You are magically compelled by your new nature to go into isolation in the wilderness.

Likewise if an Chaotic evil werewolf turns you, you become a Chaotic Evil murdering beast who seeks to strike terror into the hearts of those who trust you, and to spread the curse and its terror to others.

It is a curse. I’m not sure how you came to your conclusion.

 

[Raduin711]

In the 5e rules, you gain the alignment of the were that turns you.

That was a point I wasn't clear on. So thanks for that.

But at the same time, how can D&D have a rule like that and still maintain that there are no alignment mandates in D&D? If lycanthropy changes the alignment of the person who contracts it, that's an alignment mandate. If it doesn't, lycanthropy is not a curse.

Hopefully I am starting to make sense.