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.

 

[Maxperson]

It is like saying we have two hands (like great apes do).

It is a fact. Neutral.

I dont understand how it would be offensive.

Men being stronger than women is also a fact. Neutral. Yet you basically accused me of being sexist when I pointed that out. You don't get to have it both ways.

 

[Maxperson]

Human DNA and bonobo DNA are almost 99% identical.

99.6 and the .4 is a massive difference. DNA matters. One get one gene that shows up wrong and you can die a horrible and slow death or have a lower quality of life. They have far more than one gene that is different.

Edit: Actually, Bonobos only match Humans 98.7%

There is more. Where the bonobo disresembles the chimpanzee, the bonobo resembles the human. The bonobo faces are more diverse to socially recognize individuals, like humans. Bonobo walk bipedally more often, like humans. Bonobos reuse sex for social bonding, like humans, instead of seasonal reproduction. And so on.

Bonobos disresemble chimpanzees, but resemble humans? You do realize that Bonobos and Chimps are also 99.6% genetically identical, right? Yet that same .4% apparently makes them unlike Chimps.

No matter how much you wish it to be true, Bonobos are not human and you cannot equate their sexuality with ours. No accurately anyway.

Edit: Whoops. They are FAR closer to chimps than humans, yet somehow disresemble chimps, but resemble humans.

 

[Hussar]

I'd really hate to be part of WotC right now.

Imagine making an announcement about changes to the alignment system and, in three or four days, that conversation has morphed to discussions of sexuality among bonobos. How would you even begin to parse that?

 

[Mercurius]

I'd really hate to be part of WotC right now.

Imagine making an announcement about changes to the alignment system and, in three or four days, that conversation has morphed to discussions of sexuality among bonobos. How would you even begin to parse that?

Produce a book called Bonobos & Bacchanalia.

 

[Remathilis]

The best solution, IMO, is to reserve alignments for individuals and groups who are expected to share an ideology, and to leave alignments out of the statblocks that represent an entire species.

So let's flesh this out.

We don't want humanoids to have racial alignments, be it positive (CG elves) or negative (CE orcs). An individual NPC will have an alignment, but the default statbock in the MM will not. This is a given.

1.) Does this apply to giants, trolls, ogres, minotaurs, and other near-human monsters?
2.) Does this apply to "alien"-minded creatures like lizardfolk, yuan-ti, and sahuagin?
3.) Does this apply to undead, especially sentient undead like liches, vampires, and mummies?
4.) Does this apply to lycanthropes when under the influence of the moon?
5.) Does this apply to aberrations like mind-flayers and beholders?
6.) Does this apply to overtly-aligned planar entities like angels, demons, and devils?
7.) Does this apply to nonoverly-aligned planar entities like djinni or efreeti?
8.) Does this apply to humanoids who happen to live on a plane, such as shadar-kai, eladrin, or githzerai/yanki?
9.) Does this apply to dragons, in regard to good chromatics and evil metalics?
10.) Does this apply to creatures that lack the intelligence to make a moral decision, like constructs, oozes, and beasts? (All technically have are listed as unaligned)?

 

[Fenris-77]

I'd really hate to be part of WotC right now.

Imagine making an announcement about changes to the alignment system and, in three or four days, that conversation has morphed to discussions of sexuality among bonobos. How would you even begin to parse that?

Well, I'd probably start by stating that my evil-to-the-core, subterranean, matriarchal, but still bisexual bonobo phenotype has pale, translucent skin.

 

[Cadence]

So let's flesh this out.

We don't want humanoids to have racial alignments, be it positive (CG elves) or negative (CE orcs). An individual NPC will have an alignment, but the default statbock in the MM will not. This is a given.

1.) Does this apply to giants, trolls, ogres, minotaurs, and other near-human monsters?
2.) Does this apply to "alien"-minded creatures like lizardfolk, yuan-ti, and sahuagin?
3.) Does this apply to undead, especially sentient undead like liches, vampires, and mummies?
4.) Does this apply to lycanthropes when under the influence of the moon?
5.) Does this apply to aberrations like mind-flayers and beholders?
6.) Does this apply to overtly-aligned planar entities like angels, demons, and devils?
7.) Does this apply to nonoverly-aligned planar entities like djinni or efreeti?
8.) Does this apply to humanoids who happen to live on a plane, such as shadar-kai, eladrin, or githzerai/yanki?
9.) Does this apply to dragons, in regard to good chromatics and evil metalics?
10.) Does this apply to creatures that lack the intelligence to make a moral decision, like constructs, oozes, and beasts? (All technically have are listed as unaligned)?

I'd probably leave it blank for 1, some of the 7, and the 8 that don't live on outer planes. I can imagine many of 2 being neutral, even if generally deadly to people who get near. 10 feels neutral like it usually is. For the rest I'm fine with giving an almost always alignment (assuming alignment is staying in the game).

 

[Haldrik]

Still waiting for a reply on this, @Haldrik . We can discuss prehistoric peoples and bonobos and ideal states of culture, but what do you suggest right now that represents the actual community? What is appropriate or adequate representation?

Heh, I liked that post.

As far as I can tell, D&D has most of the tools to resolve most of the difficulties.

Customizability

• Many players already want more customization for their characters anyway. So making races customizable sooner, helps remove the problem of essentialism and supremacism. Unfortunate tropes can be dropped. Players (and DMs) can pick the tropes and mechanics that they feel more comfortable with.

• Factions are already increasing in D&D design. To move the alignment off of a creature and onto a faction helps disconnect the Evil label from certain tropes. This defacto happens anyway. Gruumsh-faction Orcs are Evil. ManyArrow-faction Orcs are Nonevil. Lolth-faction Drow are Evil. Some Drow factions are Nonevil. The Eberron setting is skillful about implementing diverse factions.

• We need examples of factions that are "savages", namely, nomadic clans and tribes who − at the same time − exhibit high Intelligence. For example, nomads who migrate the traderoutes as merchants that link advanced civilizations. These nomads themselves are likewise advanced.

• I feel Orcs, Drow, Hobgoblin, and other humanoids deserve careful scrutiny (from reallife ethnic groups) and might need serious rethinking. But new factions might remedy the problematics. If I was African or East Asian, I would probably want to see examples of uniquely African or East Asian themes that are admirable and appealing, and also examples where different ethnic groups are sharing a common culture.

Customizability and factionalism in D&D deserve emphasis and further development. Monster entries can delete alignment from the statblock, and mention variant mechanical traits and variant factions, at least for the humanoid races.



Images

I feel WotC has already made efforts to include women and various ethnic groups within the official images. These efforts have proven helpful and the player base has increased and diversified.

In a desert, even a cup of water becomes valuable. So even a few appealing images matter alot.

I would probably use the demographic of US youth, ages 13 to 20? So about 50% European, plus African, Latino, and diverse Asian. But I would over-represent smaller minorities, including LGBT, Native Americans, and so on, because their diversity can be "exotic" and fresh for narrative purposes.

I think white heterosexual males are important too, and we need to include idealized images of them too. And for them too: meaning images of sexy women − as long as these women look empowered.

WotC made transgenders a sacred identity among the eladrin. On the one hand, that broke a glass ceiling. On the other hand, it seems coherent with old school D&D tropes about Corellon. More images and stories about transgenders. I am curious about what kind of images and stories reallife transgenders want to see.

I want to see more images of male couples, and sexy goodlooking men. Also more stories about them.

I especially want to see images of masculine men being affectionate toward each other, and I feel this is important for male bonding for the psychological wellbeing of most men, whether straight or gay. Modernity and relocation to find work has damaged the ability of men to develop lifelong friendships. As men age, many men suffer loneliness and isolation.

My impression is, there are some images of lesbian women that are fun and sexy (such as drow). I assume, reallife lesbian women appreciate more serious images of female couples, maybe more professional or also more romantic images. I want all women to voice any concerns from their perspectives.



Worldbuilding. I want more religious diversity.

I want a setting that has zero to do with Forgotten Realms. Zero. Especially its religion.

Eberron already figured out how to make religious beliefs diverse. It is easy to use the Eberron setting to allow players to choose whatever fantasy religious beliefs they are more comfortable with (in reallife) for their characters.

When the Eberron setting guide tried to force Forgotten Realms gods into the Eberron setting, it felt counterproductive. Forgotten Realms and I need a divorce. This divorce has to be clean and final.

Worldbuilding. I want flavorless core rules to make worldbuilding easier. So, if there happens to be elements of D&D that turn out to be problematic, I have the tools to circumvent them more easily.



In sum: continue the direction WotC has already began. More customizability for characters and for settings. More inclusive images of characters. Factions are a great way to have ones cake and eat it too. Some factions can be offensive. And it is probably ok? Because it is only faction among other factions.

 

[Maxperson]

Worldbuilding. I want more religious diversity.

I want a setting that has zero to do with Forgotten Realms. Zero. Especially its religion.

Eberron already figured out how to make religious beliefs diverse. It is easy to use the Eberron setting to allow players to choose whatever fantasy religious beliefs they are more comfortable with (in reallife) for their characters.

When the Eberron setting guide tried to force Forgotten Realms gods into the Eberron setting, it felt counterproductive. Forgotten Realms and I need a divorce. This divorce has to be clean and final.

We already have that, though. The DMG sets up 1. Loose Pantheons, 2. Tight Pantheons, 3. Mystery Cults, 4. Monotheism, 5. Dualism, 6. Animism, and 7. Forces and Philosophies as your choices for religion. None of that inherently says Forgotten Realms. None of it. You can of course go out of your way to both choose #1 and then choose the Realms pantheon to fit into it, but if you do then it's on you that your world's religion resembles the Forgotten Realms.

Worldbuilding. I want flavorless core rules to make worldbuilding easier. So, if there happens to be elements of D&D that turn out to be problematic, I have the tools to circumvent them more easily.

So basically you want, Elf, Darkvision, stat bonuses, speed 30, size 5-6 feet, keen senses, fey ancestry, trance, languages and subrace abilities, and that's it? Nothing about what an elf might possibly be?

 

[Mercurius]

In sum: continue the direction WotC has already began. More customizability for characters and for settings. More inclusive images of characters. Factions are a great way to have ones cake and eat it too. Some factions can be offensive. And it is probably ok? Because it is only faction among other factions.

Wow, thanks for the in-depth reply. Lots of good suggestions, some of which--as you point out--are already the direction WotC is going in.

There is too much for me to reply to, but I appreciate your thoroughness and constructive ideas. A few quibbles here and there, and maybe not always how I personally would approach things, but overall I like your takes.