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.

 

[Mercurius]

Bonobos who are almost genetically identical to humans, are almost entirely bisexual. Perhaps there are 5% that are only gay and 5% that are only straight. But biologically and culturally, bonbos are bi.

Yes, I realize that. But, again, this is veering from D&D. Humans aren't bonobos. I think there's a valid argument to be made that, in some ways, their sexuality is more ideal--that we are evolving towards greater bi/pan-sexuality--but how do people self-identify now, and how should that impact representation in D&D?

 

[Haldrik]

We aren't bonobos, chimpanzees or any of the other great apes.

You may think the world would be a better place if more people identified differently, but what does that have to do with D&D?

We are, indeed, great apes.

 

[Mercurius]

We are, indeed, great apes.

Speak for yourself!

 

[Mercurius]

Seriously, though, whether or not we are great apes is debatable. Certainly we are scientifically classied among hominidae, but let us not forget that each of the major species has different characteristics and behaviors, and humans are apparently the far most diverse in this regard. And that includes sexual behavior. It is part of what makes us so interesting.

 

[Haldrik]

Yes, I realize that. But, again, this is veering from D&D. Humans aren't bonobos. I think there's a valid argument to be made that, in some ways, their sexuality is more ideal--that we are evolving towards greater bi/pan-sexuality--but how do people self-identify now, and how should that impact representation in D&D?

I suspect we were more like bonobos in prehistoric times, during a "garden of Eden", sotospeak.

The Neolithic Revolution messed humans up, as hunting skills became reused to hunt and kill other humans (war).

Things got worse and worse during Bronze, Iron, and Classical, Ages. More patriarchal, more heterosexist, more obsessed with reproducing male soldiers so as to murder other humans.

The atomic bomb, and many other modern developments (like nonagrarian economy, contraceptives, etcetera), have broken the foundation of male-heterosexual supremacism. Now we are figuring how to adapt to this new environment. We hope we are moving to a more ideal future. But this future ideal Age will in someways reintegrate our biology from a prehistoric Age. We will be able to become whole persons again.

 

[Staffan]

We are, indeed, great apes.

We're not that great.

 

[Haldrik]

Seriously, though, whether or not we are great apes is debatable. Certainly we are scientifically classied among hominidae, but let us not forget that each of the major species has different characteristics and behaviors, and humans are apparently the far most diverse in this regard. And that includes sexual behavior. It is part of what makes us so interesting.

Humans are genetically closer to bonobos/chimps than gorillas. So if they are great apes, so are we.

Of course, scientifically a "great ape" is an other word for hominid. We are hominids.

 

[Mercurius]

I suspect we were more like bonobos in prehistoric times, during a "garden of Eden", sotospeak.

The Neolithic Revolution messed humans up, as hunting skills became reused to hunt and kill other humans (war).

Things got worse and worse during Bronze, Iron, and Classical, Ages. More patriarchal, more heterosexist, more obsessed with reproducing male soldiers so as to murder other humans.

The atomic bomb, and many other modern developments (like nonagrarian economy, contraceptives, etcetera), have broken the foundation of male-heterosexual supremacism. Now we are figuring how to adapt to this new environment. We hope we are moving to a more ideal future. But this future ideal Age will in someways reintegrate our biology from a prehistoric Age. We will be able to become whole persons again.

I have some agreement with your narrative, and think it is a interesting conversation, but would suggest we ground it in the context of D&D--if only to abide by forum rules.

Let's say I agree with you that a future "garden of Eden" would involve far greater sexual diversity, and pretty much everyone being their own unique configuration, and all accepted--except those forms that caused harm to others.

How does this impact how D&D should depict sexuality now, in 2020? Should it present an ideal--that only some hold--or should it do its best to represent the actual self-identification of the community?

 

[Mercurius]

Humans are genetically closer to bonobos/chimps than gorillas. So if they are great apes, so are we.

Of course, scientifically a "great ape" is an other word for hominid. We are hominids.

Yes, we are hominids. But some worldviews say that we aren't only hominids, or that we have something that differentiates us from other hominids.

 

[Cadence]

Things got worse and worse during Bronze, Iron, and Classical, Ages. More patriarchal, more heterosexist, more obsessed with reproducing male soldiers so as to murder other humans.

The atomic bomb, and many other modern developments (like nonagrarian economy, contraceptives, etcetera), have broken the foundation of male-heterosexual supremacism. Now we are figuring how to adapt to this new environment. We hope we are moving to a more ideal future. But this future ideal Age will in someways reintegrate our biology from a prehistoric Age. We will be able to become whole persons again.

Maybe some of those things also helped to lead us from a natural state of polytheism to a male dominated monotheism...