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]

I admit I am far from perfect. One of the big points of these threads is that people perceive things differently. In addition sarcasm, tone and intent doesn't always come through.

So I freely, and repeatedly, admit that sometimes I get a bit oversensitive. I've been lumped in with people that are whiny toddlers, senile old men, racists (there have been posts that were explicit about it) and complainers. It's kind of gotten to me.

But I also think that saying a campaign where orcs are evil by nature is racist is extreme. I think that stating having an imaginary creature that could be inherently evil by nature or supernatural means is racist is just a backhanded way of saying anyone who thinks that is racist. Some of the depiction and wording around orcs is, IMHO, a separate issue.

So tell you what. I'll stop making the complaint when people stop justifying their opinion by labeling people with differences of opinions in terms of racism, degenerates, senile, toddlers, regressives. Well, actually I'll stop the complaint anyway.

But as far as the actual point of the initial article, they're just emphasizing what is already there. Alignment is only as important as you make it. I think that's a good thing. Ignore it, use it as a quick handle for creatures that only appear briefly as part of the story, use it as a strict guideline if you want.

There have been posters that think that alignment should be removed completely. We know that in the next adventure the three kobolds in a trench coat will not have an alignment entry at all. If that is the direction they're going and if they are eliminating alignment from the game I personally think it would be a mistake.

My preference would be to have more emphasis on alignment being optional, that the alignment associated to a monster being the default emphasized more than a paragraph in the intro of the MM and so on.

The issues that D&D face and have always faced are complex. We have moved into a new era of popularity and opinions that are critical of the game (rightfully or not) are often blown up because news feeds thrive on controversy. Something is popular? There has to be something wrong!

If you remove everything that could be potentially offensive to someone somewhere there won't be much fluff left to the game. I just hope WOTC finds a happy medium.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Dude, @Oofta you are allowed to have gaming preferences. If someone calls you a racist, cease conversation and use the block feature.

In our world, being a racist is about as stigmatizing as being some kind of child abuser. If someone thinks they can analyze your intent and feelings without knowing you based on game preferences, they are not people to waste your time on, period.

Don’t apologize for what you like. You don’t owe that to anyone.

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, he owes it to me, but we agreed not to speak of that terrible night.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I admit I am far from perfect. One of the big points of these threads is that people perceive things differently. In addition sarcasm, tone and intent doesn't always come through.

So I freely, and repeatedly, admit that sometimes I get a bit oversensitive. I've been lumped in with people that are whiny toddlers, senile old men, racists (there have been posts that were explicit about it) and complainers. It's kind of gotten to me.

But I also think that saying a campaign where orcs are evil by nature is racist is extreme. I think that stating having an imaginary creature that could be inherently evil by nature or supernatural means is racist is just a backhanded way of saying anyone who thinks that is racist. Some of the depiction and wording around orcs is, IMHO, a separate issue.

So tell you what. I'll stop making the complaint when people stop justifying their opinion by labeling people with differences of opinions in terms of racism, degenerates, senile, toddlers, regressives. Well, actually I'll stop the complaint anyway.

But as far as the actual point of the initial article, they're just emphasizing what is already there. Alignment is only as important as you make it. I think that's a good thing. Ignore it, use it as a quick handle for creatures that only appear briefly as part of the story, use it as a strict guideline if you want.

There have been posters that think that alignment should be removed completely. We know that in the next adventure the three kobolds in a trench coat will not have an alignment entry at all. If that is the direction they're going and if they are eliminating alignment from the game I personally think it would be a mistake.

My preference would be to have more emphasis on alignment being optional, that the alignment associated to a monster being the default emphasized more than a paragraph in the intro of the MM and so on.

The issues that D&D face and have always faced are complex. We have moved into a new era of popularity and opinions that are critical of the game (rightfully or not) are often blown up because news feeds thrive on controversy. Something is popular? There has to be something wrong!

If you remove everything that could be potentially offensive to someone somewhere there won't be much fluff left to the game. I just hope WOTC finds a happy medium.

One thing that might be getting lost in translation is that for some of us, being for "always evil orcs" is being against orcs that can be complex.

I guess it depends on what people want and say they want. People who are against making orcs more complicated (ie good, evil or neutral orcs) in the context of the meta-level of the game because they need an enemy for their players to fight... that doesn't make sense to me. You can still fight orcs. You can still fight evil orcs. You can still fight evil orc slavers who raid and pillage villages.

Just like you could have evil human slavers who raid and pillage villages.

But, at the meta-textual level, it would also be true that you could have any number of different orcs. From saints and scholars to murder-hobos.


I also don't think that there is really a setting that has been published to date where that is not already a possibility. Faerun has the Many-Arrows Kingdom after all. Wildemount has complicated orcs. Really, the only one I'm not sure about is Greyhawk (which isn't published).

And, a lot of people would probably be fine with Greyhawk orcs being evil and ruled by Gruumsh's rage, because that is true in Greyhawk, but it isn't true at the meta-level. Plus, we get rid of some racist language in the mix.


But, when I see people arguing that orcs must be always evil because of Gruumsh, it comes across that all orcs have to be Greyhawk orcs. That we have to set at the meta-textual level that that is our default, and then let the exceptions come in. And I think that perception of trying to set the meta-level is where the pushback is, while some people on the other side hear us asking for complex orcs, and interpret that as us wanting no evil orcs anywhere. Which isn't true.

 

[Oofta]

One thing that might be getting lost in translation is that for some of us, being for "always evil orcs" is being against orcs that can be complex.

I guess it depends on what people want and say they want. People who are against making orcs more complicated (ie good, evil or neutral orcs) in the context of the meta-level of the game because they need an enemy for their players to fight... that doesn't make sense to me. You can still fight orcs. You can still fight evil orcs. You can still fight evil orc slavers who raid and pillage villages.

Just like you could have evil human slavers who raid and pillage villages.

But, at the meta-textual level, it would also be true that you could have any number of different orcs. From saints and scholars to murder-hobos.


I also don't think that there is really a setting that has been published to date where that is not already a possibility. Faerun has the Many-Arrows Kingdom after all. Wildemount has complicated orcs. Really, the only one I'm not sure about is Greyhawk (which isn't published).

And, a lot of people would probably be fine with Greyhawk orcs being evil and ruled by Gruumsh's rage, because that is true in Greyhawk, but it isn't true at the meta-level. Plus, we get rid of some racist language in the mix.


But, when I see people arguing that orcs must be always evil because of Gruumsh, it comes across that all orcs have to be Greyhawk orcs. That we have to set at the meta-textual level that that is our default, and then let the exceptions come in. And I think that perception of trying to set the meta-level is where the pushback is, while some people on the other side hear us asking for complex orcs, and interpret that as us wanting no evil orcs anywhere. Which isn't true.

I don't want to change this to another "what's the role of orcs thread". I will just say that if it makes sense to have always evil orcs, fiends or gnomes in a specific campaign I see no problem with it. Some of the wording and imagery on the other hand ... yeah. That should change.

In fiction, Gruumsh can be a supernatural influence on orcs, that doesn't mean he must be.

It doesn't make sense to have universal constants across all campaigns. Which is why I think they can emphasize that alignments are defaults, do what makes sense for your campaign. For example I use the default orcs from the MM because while orcs exist they have never been a big part of any campaign.

But the related issue is why the orcs are evil, and I'm not sure that having a race with things like violent tendencies is any better. I think that issue can be complicated and potentially full of pitfalls as well.

 

[jsaving]

It doesn't make sense to have universal constants across all campaigns. Which is why I think they can emphasize that alignments are defaults, do what makes sense for your campaign.

This is exactly what I took Jeremy's post to mean. As far as I can tell, he was simply saying that when you see an alignment entry in a book, feel free to use/delete/bypass it as your campaign warrants rather than typecasting an entire demographic group because you believe RAW requires it.

 

[Hussar]

How about we stop lumping everyone who disagrees as "complainers" who only want cliche adventures and are "afraid"?

Maybe, just maybe, instead of insulting each other we could express our preferences? Acknowledge that every game has and will continue to have issues because nothing is perfect? Accept that we can both play the game and have different goals and experiences? Talk about what adjustments could be made and what people's concerns are?
/snip

I would take your umbrage as being slightly more genuine if you would apply this same language to folks who have repeatedly told us that no one actually cares about this, compares those who want change to whiney toddlers, so on and so forth.

See, if you're going to complain that you're getting lumped in with certain company, maybe, just maybe, make sure that folks know that you don't agree with their points? If you only complain about one side, it does tend to look like you're arm in arm with the other side.

 

[FrogReaver]

To build on this - hyperbole blocks access to nuance and understanding of place of issues on the spectrum of severity. If everything is stated in only drastic terms, it drives conversation to poles, which reduces the ability to find compromise.

If you start from the position that anything and everything you don't like is the end of the world... you leave those with other opinions no options to offer alternatives, and you leave yourself no emotional space to back down and accept a compromise, or even that other people's points have merit.

Putting a hyperbolic stake in the ground is great for pontificators trying to rally toops. It isn't a good negotiating tactic.

In general - Why are these words only ever directed at the “other side” instead of to all sides?

I’ll answer. Basic Human Nature. We ignore the faults of those who take a position similar to ours and amplify the faults of those opposing us.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why not just not exaggerate? Say what you mean, instead of how it feels to you.

This whole discussion is based on some people feeling hurt/offended.

Taking into account others feelings and not dismissing them is important IMO. If they feel you are essentially calling them a racist you shouldn’t just dismiss their feelings right?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

This whole discussion is based on some people feeling hurt/offended.

Taking into account others feelings and not dismissing them is important IMO. If they feel you are essentially calling them a racist you shouldn’t just dismiss their feelings right?

You seem to confusing a lot of stuff here.

Hyperbole is rubbish. It ruins discussions and confuses people. It masks true feelings and concrete problems under "hilarious" exaggeration. That's what I'm talking about.

If people "feel" they're being "called a racist", when they aren't, what are you supposed to say to them? Whether you're being called a racist or not is a matter of fact, not opinion. If you say "Oh, Ruin, don't call me a racist!" and I say "I'm specifically not calling you a racist." and you say "But I FEEL like you are!!!" then it's "Okay, cool, you can feel that way", but that's the end of the conversation, because there's nothing more to be said. The feeling have been acknowledged. There is no possible action to be taken. End of.

This discussion is not based on "some people" (i.e. I guess this is how you're referring to ethnic minorities?) being "hurt/offended" anyway. That's giant canard. So you're either confused or being disingenuous. It's based on people quite correctly asserting that certain tropes and approaches are outdated and harmful. It's not "offended", it's that the tropes themselves are harmful. WotC agrees and recognises this, and is keen to change a lot of that stuff, including stuff nobody asked to be changed (the stat thing is clearly a happy coincidence, not something people asked for).

The alignment thing isn't because people are "offended", it's because it was dumb and old-fashioned in a bad way, and it's past time for it to change. It should have changed in 3E, especially given an awful lot of people were already running it that way.