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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It doesn't really matter. Whether I plot down evil and then describe in the flavor section how it's evil, or describe how it's evil and then decide it's evil, it's the same difference.

No Max, there is a vast difference.

If we go with "Nazis are Evil. Because they are evil they kill people" then it is their very nature that drives them. Even if they did nothing but sit in an empty room they would be evil.

But if we go with "Nazi's kill people. Because they kill people they are evil." Then it is their actions which drive the morality being told.

We get to the same place, but we get their by acknowledging free will and allowing nuance. Or by slapping down a label and okaying us to take our two minutes of hate out on whichever creature has the right label.

So first, this thread has traveled back and forth across all of the editions and to Tolkien and back, so 1e is relevant. Second, WotC decided to axed most of the good creatures and use the evil ones, since good creatures aren't used even close to as often as evil ones. 5e is a poor edition to use for what you are trying to use it for.

So, there are no good creatures who are ugly in 5e. Which was my point. So, 5e is actually the perfect edition for my point. Because it was the edition I was talking about.

Also, you made the claim that you could find Good, Ugly creatures for any edition, your exact Quote being "I'm sure I could find examples in every edition. "

So, if you want to backtrack and retract your own assertion, feel free.

If I want to play WoW, I play WoW. When I play D&D, I expect things to be a bit more realistic and not have every humanoid in the game come with spawn points.

Right, better to have the evil children for us to kill, that is what DnD is about.

 

[Remathilis]

Because at the meta-rule level, it is easier to simplify than to make more complex.

What? No! It's easier to start with a simple idea and then layer on complexities than it is to go in reverse! To borrow a more "fleshed out" idea, the notion of elves as woodland protectors and lovers of magic is a simple concept that encapsulates the stereotypical elf, but each subrace (high elf, wood elf, sun elf, dark elf, moon elf, sea elf, averial elf, Sylvanesti elf, Areniel elf, dusk elf, eladrin, shadar-kai, etc, etc.) has added to the lore in some unique way. They didn't create two-dozen different elves and then simplify them to "typical elves like forests, bows, and magic".

Jeez, next you'll argue it's easier to teach Calculus first and then teach multiplication!

Orcs didn't get a lot of detail for two reasons: 1.) They generally aren't PCs and they don't need the same attention as a PC race and 2.) They're role is limited to low level mooks. The only real reason I can see for making them more complex is to make them a viable PC choice with no repercussions. It won't be enough to say "There are good orcs too!" if the only orcs PCs see in modules and adventures are the evil raider types. A kingdom of orcs that exists just beyond the horizon might as well not exist if orcs are still viewed as CR 1/2 random encounters. Let's be frank about this; the only way this is going away is when orcs become just like elves; a major part of most settings and a viable PC option that nobody will look askance at. This isn't about "why are all orcs evil" it's about "why are orcs evil at all" and it's going to end when all the humanoids in the Monster Manual are recast as sympathetic species co-existing amongst elves, dwarves, and halflings.

Maybe the next reprint of Phandelver will replace the goblin tribe with halfling bandits and the drow antagonist with a regular moon elf, and then put some goblins, orcs, and drow townfolk in Phandalin. Equality!

 

[Mercurius]

If I understand correctly, then the reason this is even a debate is because some players of color are deeply disturbed by D&D’s language regarding humanoids.

I wouldn't put it that way. I'd say that the debate exists because some people are disturbed. I have no idea about numbers, but I don't think the outrage is coming primarily from people of color. Anyhow, I think it is more of an interpretive framework than it is an ethnic demographic. Meaning, some players of a specific ideological or interpretive framework are disturbed.

As far as the Zen analogy, it refers to the basic stages of cognitive development in Zen. Before Zen, one sees the world as they've been taught, without questioning. During Zen, everything gets up-turned and one begins to see the world isn't as they thought it was, that it is always filtered via the mind's projections, which provide countless ways to be lost. After Zen--to what degree I can express it--one is able to differentiate between the mind's projections and the world as it is.

 

[Maxperson]

No Max, there is a vast difference.

If we go with "Nazis are Evil. Because they are evil they kill people" then it is their very nature that drives them. Even if they did nothing but sit in an empty room they would be evil.

But if we go with "Nazi's kill people. Because they kill people they are evil." Then it is their actions which drive the morality being told.

We get to the same place, but we get their by acknowledging free will and allowing nuance. Or by slapping down a label and okaying us to take our two minutes of hate out on whichever creature has the right label.

We're talking about Beholders, not Nazis. The game doesn't equate to real life, but yeah, I agree that in real life you can't peg any race as one alignment.

So, there are no good creatures who are ugly in 5e. Which was my point. So, 5e is actually the perfect edition for my point. Because it was the edition I was talking about.

Okay, but so what. It's a meaningless statement. They took good creatures out(both ugly and attractive) because people don't use them, not because they were ugly.

Also, you made the claim that you could find Good, Ugly creatures for any edition, your exact Quote being "I'm sure I could find examples in every edition. "

Meh. I was trying to be lazy, but...

Cloud giants in 5e are 50% chance of being good and are ugly as sin. Djinnis are ugly. Storm giants in Volo's are ugly. These are all human looking good creatures. And I was still lazy. I didn't even look at all the good creatures.

So, if you want to backtrack and retract your own assertion, feel free.

No need. I'm not wrong.

Right, better to have the evil children for us to kill, that is what DnD is about.

If that's what you want to do with them, go for it. It's certainly not what I said, though.

 

[Baba]

So, I have been thinking about how people engage with morality when roleplaying.

I settled on four modes that seem to cover most of the games/gamers I have been exposed to:

• A) The default morality of the characters and ingame society is quite similar to that of the players and real, modern society, often with some small adjustments due to the setting.
• B) The default morality of the characters and ingame society is different from that of the players and real, modern society.
• C) As B, and in addition there is an objectively true ingame morality that is different from whatever the players believe in real life.
• D) As B or C, and some of the ingame beliefs/truths echo real life beliefs/concepts that are controversial (or downright terrible).

I don't think any of these modes are morally objectionable in themselves. I seldom use A myself, but I enjoy both B, C and D. And d&d5 can handle all of these without need for any great adjustment.

But the one we're discussing in this thread is D, I would say: The assumed ingame morality and fantasy race descriptions echoes real life racism. (I know everyone does not agree, but there have been 1k posts about that already.)

I think that could be fine, but it is still probably best to change, because D can be a tricky balancing act. In my experience, D works best if:

1. There's a point to it. (In this case, I'm not sure it makes the game better in any way. You could use the game to explore racism, for examble, but I don't think that is what most players are looking for.)
2. It's a conscious choice for those playing. (In this case I suspect it's often not. Neither was it for the original game creators. Then you are not playing with the controversial beliefs, you are just reproducing them.)
3. Those playing feel comfortable with the subject matter and their coplayers. (Wotc are not obliged to make games everyone is comfortable with, but I think they WANT broad appeal, and in this case I think that is a good thing.)

So it seems to me that wotc has chosen the most sensible path.

 

[Mecheon]

If I want to play WoW, I play WoW. When I play D&D, I expect things to be a bit more realistic and not have every humanoid in the game come with spawn points.

I mean, if you wanted to be realistic, you wouldn't be going with D&D orcs. Things being "Always X" isn't realistic. I hate to say Warcraft, through having nuanced characters who run the gamit from Trying To Make A New Future in the form of Thrall, Defending The New Future in Saurfang, Not Learning From The Past (plus a bit of Trying To Uphold An Ideal in exactly the wrong way) in Garrosh, and Defending The Regime (even if you don't agree with it) in Nazgrim, is realistic orcs. They do multiple different things and have different ideas in 'em

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, if you wanted to be realistic, you wouldn't be going with D&D orcs. Things being "Always X" isn't realistic.

Sure it is. We have a fantasy reason, "Their god makes it that way with his power." for them to be that way. That makes it plenty realistic for a fantasy world. Realism =/= mirrors reality.

I hate to say Warcraft, through having nuanced characters who run the gamit from Trying To Make A New Future in the form of Thrall, Defending The New Future in Saurfang, Not Learning From The Past (plus a bit of Trying To Uphold An Ideal in exactly the wrong way) in Garrosh, and Defending The Regime (even if you don't agree with it) in Nazgrim, is realistic orcs. They do multiple different things and have different ideas in 'em

That's not the part I was talking about, though. I was talking about creatures basically having spawn points in D&D, which is what is being suggested above.

 

[Mecheon]

Sure it is. We have a fantasy reason, "Their god makes it that way with his power." for them to be that way. That makes it plenty realistic for a fantasy world. Realism =/= mirrors reality.

Except that isn't internally consistent. This is where the problem hits; This is inconsistent with every other race in the game and, hell, even in-game lore at points

Let's break this down:

1: Inconsistency with other gods

"Gods making you X" does not work for any other race. Leaving off the two races with no dedicated creator god (Humans and halflings), it doesn't work for dwarves, doesn't work for elves (Of any stripe, I'm including Drow in here), doesn't work for gnomes. Therefore, if gods can make an entire race be an alignment with their power, this needs to be expressed through others. This is clearly not the case through various other races. Hell, the ONE race this is logical for is gnolls given their specific lack of free will and basically being demons in this edition, and, well, 5E gnolls are easily their least popular interpretation. Goblins likewise have this a a semi-implied thing, but goblins are, per the lore of the game, free to rebel and have figures that specifically exist to thumb their nose at said goblin gods in the form of the 5E lore of Nilbogs.

If making all of your followers a specific alignment was a power D&D gods had, one would expect multiple gods to have this. So the easy and obvious answer is, let's go to Lolth. Lolth blatantly does not have this power. She rules through a combination of fear and micromanaging the drow like she's playing an RTS game. However, literately the first introduction of the Drow is about them basically joining up with another cult. Likewise (Theories about him being a secret champion of Lolth aside), Dritz's regular thumbing the nose at Drow convention and the entire idea of renegade Drow in general shows this to be something Drow don't have

And if Drow of all races don't have it, why all of a sudden would orcs?

2: Inconsistency with Game Lore

Now, here's where I hit the obscurer bits of my D&D knowledge: There's at least one random book out that calls Many Arrows, y'know, FR's orcish kingdom, an affront to Gruumsh. It isn't what he wants from orcs and priests of Gruumsh specifically try to destroy the thing. This mangles your argument as you've got orcs acting against their perceived "Always Chaotic Evil", and going about things a different way while still paying some homage to their god as much as he hates it.

The sheer existence of Many Arrows prevents "The god of the orcs is so interfering in orcish lives he is able to control their alignments" from being possible, as it would not exist if he was capable of doing so.

Therefore, your statement
"The orcish god has enough power over them to force an alignment on them" requires "The orcish god has power over them to Control Them". The existence of Many Arrows prevents this, as Many Arrows is an orcish kingdom that flies in direct opposite to what Gruumsh wants from orcs.

Therefore, orcs are sapient and capable of coming to their own opinions about things and orcs being "Always Chaotic Evil" is not internally consistent with how gods are presented or how orcs are presented, and that's even before we get to them being playable.

 

[Mercurius]

At this point it almost seems like there are four "alignments" with regards to these issues as a whole. I'll use random colors that have no symbolic meaning other than relating to each other on a spectrum.

RED: Massive change and/or cancellation is required, including removal of offending products and/or significant re-writes. Very different direction going forward.

ORANGE: Some change/removal of past products makes sense, deepen/clarify disclaimers, review and edit 5E products with more cultural consulting moving forward.

GREEN: Let history be history, fantasy be fantasy. General disclaimers are OK and some modifications for the future are fine, but don't go overboard.

BLUE: Don't mess with traditions - remove disclaimers. Just play (or don't play) the damn game.

My sense is that the Red and Blue folks are small but vocal percentages of the overall community, no matter what the noise on twitter is. Most here are somewhere in the Orange-to-Green spectrum. The obvious solution lies there, perhaps in some form of "YELLOW."

Most of the problems lie in one or more of three areas, as I see it:

• Red-Orange people think that Green people are Blue; or Blue-Green people think that Orange people are Red.
• Red-Orange or Blue-Green people aren't willing to consider Yellow options.
• In more reasonable discussions, Orange and Green people not agreeing on what Yellow is or should be.

There are probably other problems, but those are what came to mind as I was writing this.

For me the key to "solving" these issues is 1) Recognizing that Red and Blue are extreme views, and the solution (and most people) lies somewhere in-between; and 2) You don't have to be Yellow to accept and even embrace Yellow solutions. Yellow is a compromise for both, but because of that, it is the most inclusive option for a diversity of views and interpretive frameworks.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Right, but let me ask you this.

Why did they peg it as evil?

Was it evil because it was a beholder? Or was it evil because it was a manipulator seeking treasure and death?

That's the point. The point is that instead of just plopping down a "evil" label, we get to see why it is evil. It is evil because of X, and therefore anything that does X is evil. I could make any creature an Insane Manipulator seeking treasure and death and they'd all be evil, so it opens us up to caring about their actions instead of just putting them in a box and moving on.

Some in this thread have incorrectly concluded that their debaters think that it's OK to go out of your way to slaughter Evil creatures even if they didn't harm you in the first place, just because they are Evil. It may not be your point but I am using this post to clarify that it's not morally acceptable either. If Orcs are Evil superpredators, it's OK to kill them when they raid your village, but it's not OK to get out of your way to reach an orcish village and kill them all. Same with, say, wolves. We removed them from our city centres and can understand that shepherds act to protect their flocks while thinking that flying to some remote place where you can find wolves to kill them randomly is a little excessive.

There is a point here that you aren't considering. I bolded it.

If the human surrenders it is a crime to kill them.

So, if a mindflayer surrenders... shouldn't it also be a crime?

It should if the mindflayer has free will. If he's some extension of the hive mind of his city, irremediably Evil, and its only way of feeding is eating human brains, then killing him is less problematic. If he's a free-willed mind flayer, with the liberty to choose how it acts and feeds, it is a human with tentacles and killing him would be a crime as well.

Maybe but let us step back from the curtain for a moment. Why are they surrendering? See, the Dungeon Master has full control here. If the human cultist refuses to surrender... then the players aren't under any compulsion to not kill them. It isn't like they are forced to never kill a human after all, heck, when they fireballed the first group of cultists they killed a lot of them.

I like to play my NPCs who value the continuation of their lives. Most of them will surrender, because very few causes are worth fighting to the death. In real life, 99.9% (this is hyperbole, I don't know the real statistics) of offenders are simply arrested, they don't fight to the death with the police forces. I play my NPCs like that. Sure, you will find cultists who will try to do a stand-off like some millenarian sects did in real life, but even them they don't all fight to the death when surrounded. And even if they killed them "inadvertantly", the PCs will be hard pressed to explain why they used lethal force as the first resort by the authorities. Typical scenario: Village elders hire the PC to resolve problem with a group of evil-worshipping forest dwellers who decided their presence encroaches on their forest and kills farmers here and there. If the PC come back and say "oh, don't worry any longer about them, we wiped them all", the elders will worry they have invited the same sort of wackos that they faced in the first place.

So, making orcs intelligent humanoids with complex morality does not mean that players suddenly can't kill them. Because if they don't surrender... then you kill them. The issue only gets complicated when the enemy starts surrendering, and at that point, the DM wants this to be a a decision.

And why wouldn't intelligent, free willed orcs surrender less than human would do in the same situation? If they are just humans with a mask, they should behave like human opponents. If they are the extension of the will of Gruumsh, then they will behave like Gruumsh want them to do, and he cares about them the same as one care for his hairs... nice to have but ultimately expandable. He will see very little interrest in having them surrender and will ingrain in them the desire to fight to the death.

If I have a mindflayer surrender, I want my players to stop and consider it, to have their morals tested. It is a monster that is unredeemable, but can you just kill something that is surrendering? If I expected my players to just shrug, kill it and say "its a monster, killing it is fine" then I wouldn't have bothered having it surrender. Because there would be no point in it.

If a mind flayer is surrendering, despite it being totally irremediably evil, it must be a part of a scheme. Plus, once it is established that mind flayer can only sustain themselves by feeding on people, there is literally no solution to handle a mind flayer infestation. Keeping them in jail and letting them starve is probably ethically worse. Despite humanities' interest in preserving biodiversity, noone advocated against the eradication of smallpox.

Because at the meta-rule level, it is easier to simplify than to make more complex.

It is easier for you to say "these orcs you will encounter are raiders and murderers" while at the meta level we have a complex society to draw from, than for us to go create a complex society from "kill anything that is a player race"

I think this is the point of miscommunication we keep running into. People are free to run whatever they want in their campaigns, we are just asking for a change at the meta-level, and it is far easier to simplify evil motivations for a group of people than it is to make caricatures of evil and violence more complex.

The easier way to accomodate all playstyle should be to have BOTH "caricature of evil" (orcs and mindflayers of old) AND complex evil (humans, elves, dwarves, halflings... who happen to be evil), instead of having ONLY "always evil creature" (something I don't see anyone advocating) or having ONLY "morally complex creatures" (as the change of the meta-level you advocate for would result). When you have both, you just have to choose the right opponent to tell the story you want to tell, when you only have one type of evil, you have to tweak it. I agree that it is easier to simply than complexify, so the choices, in term of decreasing simplicity, are (a) "have both evil and free-willed races" > (b) "have only free-willed races" > (c) "have only always evil races". If I get your position right, you're saying the b is easier than c to handle (which I agree) while I am saying that a is easier to deal with than b.

Heck, watch any movie where the action hero faces off against a "criminal group" and you'll likely have humans being shot and killed across the screen for nearly an hour with no deeper motivations than "they are the bad guys". While we can still understand that humans are complex and capable of many different moral frameworks.

I think I'd fall asleep before the hour has passed, because the setup of labelling criminal group evil and warranting killing them all is not appealing to me, when it is obvious that we're speaking of human beings.

Why does every problem you just listed for identifying the "bad" orcs not apply to this?

Isn't that human barbarian tribe worshiping a different religion than the "civilized" folk? Could they just tend to be violent and Evil and a menace to society? What happens if you kill their warriors, don't they have wives and children?

So, you can't actually use the human barbarian tribe. In fact, you seem to not be able to use anything that worships or has family units (by the way, evil orcs already do this in default DnD 5e, you've just labeled them evil and decided not to worry about the orc children)

And that is actually the clutch, all of these things you are laying out that will ruin the game for you if Orcs are suddenly not evil, already exist. They are already religious radicals with families and described like super predators. The difference is you are using the label of "evil" to hide behind and not see that as a problem.

Well, for the rest of us, the label of evil hasn't really ever been enough to hide those facts. In fact, the point that we are supposed to label them evil with no further consideration beyond that, and therefore killing them is perfectly acceptable is again part of the problem.

So, if you can run an evil human barbarian camp without an existential crisis, then I don't get why orcs should be any different.

And since exactly, we don't run an evil human barbarian camp without an existential crisis (because even labelling them barbarians, unless speaking of the PC class of course, is telling a lot about the culture the PCs are from), then I guess you can get why orcs and mindflayers should be different.