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.

 

[Mecheon]

You are choosing to play against type. Just because you want to play a beardless dwarf swashbuckler with a rapier doesn't mean the game is obligated to make an entire culture of beardless dwarf swashbucklers for you to hail from. Species get stories built into them.

Consider the poster-child of antihero races: tiefling. They are devil-spawn and most people view them as untrustworthy at best. Some tieflings live up to this reputation. (The PHB even states that many end up evil) but PCs end up usually being the ones who don't. Should the game reverse this because some players don't want to be viewed as outcasts or devil worshippers, they just want them sexy tiefling horns?

What about a PC who wants a Cannibal halfling? Are we now to say "some halflings are cannibals, most people in town avoid dinner invitations from them." ?

We're going to get to the point that races (species, ancestries, whatever) are just physical skins and a few powers and that's it. No distinct cultures, no unique mindsets, because that will mean people have to play those characters with certain expectations and that hurts my Indigo Soul's feelings.

My inner Grognard is showing...

Is it even against type at this point? FR had Grey Orcs and Many Arrows, and 'Good orcs' are specifically flat out the type for Eberron. I've had fun with playing against type in the past (My extremely tired elven professor who sidelines as a warlock and isn't arrogant about it, and my catboy barbarian who's a sensitive nervous soul who only opens up in battle or when obsessing over weapons among them) and.... Good orc isn't against type at this point. Orc mage? That's against type. But there's dozens of good orcs in fiction.

Re-thinking this, I think the problem is D&D's interpretation of orcs hasn't kept pace with how they're seen in other sources. To put it simply, orcs have moved on in popular culture. But D&D ones haven't. And that's where there's going to be a disconnect and why there's so much saying on this.

90% of famous tieflings out there in various sources tend towards the nicer end of the scale. Let's not forget, no one cares about Generic Tiefling NPC. They care about Annah from Planescape: Torment, or other such characters from various webgames. Let's not forget the effect these important fleshed-out characters have on the game, what with fellow Planescape character Dak'kon being why Githzerai have any of their unique lore and aren't just githyanki knock-offs

One of my favourite random stories in D&D was about a halfling barbarian who ends up in a party with a halfling bard. Over the course of it they fall in what amounts for love, even though the barbarian's probably more chill with the half orc warrior in the party due to the two being a fan of considerably large weapons and RIP AND TEAR. Plus, y'know, Dark Sun and all halflings actually coming from Dark Sun

 

[Remathilis]

Is it even against type at this point? FR had Grey Orcs and Many Arrows, and 'Good orcs' are specifically flat out the type for Eberron. I've had fun with playing against type in the past (My extremely tired elven professor who sidelines as a warlock and isn't arrogant about it, and my catboy barbarian who's a sensitive nervous soul who only opens up in battle or when obsessing over weapons among them) and.... Good orc isn't against type at this point. Orc mage? That's against type. But there's dozens of good orcs in fiction.

Apparently it is, because despite all the examples you pointed to, I'm still being told that: D&D says all orcs are evil because of that I can't play one. And that needs to change!

 

[Maxperson]

Is it even against type at this point? FR had Grey Orcs and Many Arrows, and 'Good orcs' are specifically flat out the type for Eberron.

And I've already mentioned two or three times the thousands of non-evil Forgotten Realms orcs that live together with humans in Thesk.

 

[VelvetViolet]

And if not just Orcs, but Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Kobolds, Drow, Sahuagin, Yuan-ti, Duergar, etc. all "spawned" from spores or other methods of popping into existence fully formed and ready to wage war, as was suggested upthread?

 

[Maxperson]

My computer doesn't have sound. Would you explain that?

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

My computer doesn't have sound. Would you explain that?

Do you remember the movies where the action hero kills hechmen, and nobody worries about death of secondary characters? This scene shows those people also have got families, and they suffer when the hechmen die in the hands of the action hero. Is the hero really a "good guy"?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

How about we just all do our best to discuss ideas and not label one another. K?

But who is labeling you? Where? In which posts?

But if I may interject one thought here, morally it's not okay to kill bad guys just because they are bad guys.

Yes, it is. Well, more accurately, it certainly can be. Nazis, demon cultists who sacrifice babies to bring demons into the world, etc. Taking prisoners when they surrender may be more good than executing them on the spot, but this isn't the real world. We can't really be sure that the necromancer cultist isn't capable of terrible evil while in prison or on trial. Or that executing them in a public square won't endanger those in attendance. Generally, I oppose killing those who surrender without some form of due process, because modern moral biases are hard to shake, and also are objectively better.

But an evil combatant? Someone actively working toward sacrificing children to bring demons into the world? Absolutely just and good to kill them.

Real people don't look like monsters, nor do they look evil.

You can't possibly be unaware that racists have claimed exactly that other people do look like evil monsters for centuries. That isn't even a question, I genuinely am not willing to believe that you're unaware.

Answering a simple question with a question?

What if instead of green skin it was a beholder?

A beholder isn't a natural person who is a member of a race. Beholders aren't a race, or a people, or a species. They're a literal anomaly caused by the realm of unknowable madness touching the world and warping it.

But if you want to have a good and/or sane beholder, go for it! An anomalous beholder is far from unimaginable. But it isn't at all the same category of question as "should this playable species of sapient people who are born and die and are part of the world have a forced alignment?"

At a certain point if orcs no longer represent a monster, an evil/rage filled dark version of humanity bent on destruction of all other races (kind of like the Reavers in FireFly) to me they just become another human in a rubber mask. They're boring.

Then don't use them, or change them in your campaign.

Why does it bother you that the MM description of Orcs could change so that it doesn't make people uncomfortable? What effect does it have on your campaign?

I find always evil orcs painfully boring. I literally have trouble imagining a more boring enemy/threat than "a race of people who are just born evil". That has literally no impact, ever, on your campaign.

I mean, you keep saying you rarely use orcs, and yet you keep getting defensive about orcs in your campaigns when everyone else is trying to talk about orcs in the official books.

 

[Fenris-77]

You can't possibly be unaware that racists have claimed exactly that other people do look like evil monsters for centuries. That isn't even a question, I genuinely am not willing to believe that you're unaware.

Well, for one, I was talking about actual monsters, not monstrous humanoids. Second, real people don't look like monsters or monstrous humanoids. People might say that they do, but they don't. So no, I'm not unaware, I was indexing the falsehood inherent in that position.

 

[Oofta]

But who is labeling you? Where? In which posts?


Yes, it is. Well, more accurately, it certainly can be. Nazis, demon cultists who sacrifice babies to bring demons into the world, etc. Taking prisoners when they surrender may be more good than executing them on the spot, but this isn't the real world. We can't really be sure that the necromancer cultist isn't capable of terrible evil while in prison or on trial. Or that executing them in a public square won't endanger those in attendance. Generally, I oppose killing those who surrender without some form of due process, because modern moral biases are hard to shake, and also are objectively better.

But an evil combatant? Someone actively working toward sacrificing children to bring demons into the world? Absolutely just and good to kill them.


You can't possibly be unaware that racists have claimed exactly that other people do look like evil monsters for centuries. That isn't even a question, I genuinely am not willing to believe that you're unaware.

A beholder isn't a natural person who is a member of a race. Beholders aren't a race, or a people, or a species. They're a literal anomaly caused by the realm of unknowable madness touching the world and warping it.

But if you want to have a good and/or sane beholder, go for it! An anomalous beholder is far from unimaginable. But it isn't at all the same category of question as "should this playable species of sapient people who are born and die and are part of the world have a forced alignment?"

Then don't use them, or change them in your campaign.

Why does it bother you that the MM description of Orcs could change so that it doesn't make people uncomfortable? What effect does it have on your campaign?

I find always evil orcs painfully boring. I literally have trouble imagining a more boring enemy/threat than "a race of people who are just born evil". That has literally no impact, ever, on your campaign.

I mean, you keep saying you rarely use orcs, and yet you keep getting defensive about orcs in your campaigns when everyone else is trying to talk about orcs in the official books.

I don't care how people use orcs. I think it would be an overreaction to remove alignments from monsters that happen to be shaped vaguely like humans. Orcs, for many people, are useful and fill a role in their campaigns. Better to be clearer that for all monsters the alignment is just a default. I just don't think orcs (or any humanoid) is particularly different than other intelligent monsters.

 

[VelvetViolet]

Do you remember the movies where the action hero kills hechmen, and nobody worries about death of secondary characters? This scene shows those people also have got families, and they suffer when the hechmen die in the hands of the action hero. Is the hero really a "good guy"?

Exactly. Explaining that the mooks physically cannot have families means that you don’t need to worry about that if you just want consequence-free violent slaughter fantasies.

Although I do find myself partial to 90s adventure shows like Beastmaster where the hero was technically a pacifist. I think D&D has become unnecessarily slaughter-focused when it doesn’t really need to be.