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]

Judging by the paleolithic figurines of women (always women, never men), the ideal image of a woman is a well-nourished and breast-feeding, pregnant, All-Mother, source of all life.

Recall that the biblical name Eve (Khava) means "life-giver", somehow preserving the memory of a prehistoric reverence of women as the source of all life, the All-Mother.

They didnt yet know that sex caused pregnancy. The nine-month delay and frequent sexuality made it less obvious. So, from the prehistoric perspective, humans only have mothers. No fathers. The female is the existential source of Being. All children, both daughters and sons, are loyal to their mother.

Thus despite being moreorless egalitarian, the friendships among mothers tended to govern what the clan decided to do, since all the children were loyal to this central group of mothers.

Prehistoric human culture strongly resembled bonobo culture, in this way. Division of male group and female group, with the female group being a friendship among clan mothers.

Also like bonobos, among humans it is the female that tends to leave her clan to join an other clan elsewhere. (Biologically, this allows exchange of DNA to keep the genepools healthy admixtures.) Of course, each young woman as she came of age, felt the instinct to leave her clan and adventure off into the unknown. I am unsure how that must have felt subjectively, this wanderlust. I guess there are women today who if they thought about it, could imagine themselves in that situation, and accurate speculate how these motives felt.

In any case, the heartbreak of daughters separating from their mothers, perhaps never to see each other again when clans migrated away in different directions, was a life event among prehistoric humans.

I like the suggestion that these figurines of mothers were ceremonial gifts from a mother to her daughter, when she decided to leave to join an other clan. The daughter would soon become a mother in a different clan. The gift would remind her of her mother who raised her. They were now both aspects of the All-Mother, and were aspects of one animistic being, and will never truly be separate from each other.

Also like bonobos, when the soon to be mother joined an other clan, she never united with a particular man. Rather. She became a member of the group of mothers of this clan. It is the women that the new woman united with. She is now an All-Mother of a clan.

The men of her new clan (including woman-to-man transgenders) would venture of to hunt migrating animal herds. When the men returned back to the women with meat, they would celebrate sexually together, with everyone having sex with everyone. Bisexually. (The sacred orgies of the Classical Age preserve remnants of these of prehistoric sexual customs.)

Over the course of years, the mother of clan would spontaneous bring forth life of her own children. Children loyal to her.

A day would come, when her daughter came of age. At the heartbreak happened again. Her daughter must now venture off to become the All-Mother of her own clan. And she would give her a figurine to remind her. They are never truly separate.

That's an interesting story, but we have very little knowledge of how prehistoric people lived. We can make guesses, but that's it.

I don't see what any of this has to do with D&D.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah.

Surveys survey "self-identity".

Consider prisons, boarding schools, or all places where only men are present.

In these male environments, bisexuality is biological fact, but rarely a social "identity".

And here I thought that human sexuality was determined by who was buying the drinks.

 

[Umbran]

Judging by the paleolithic figurines of women (always women, never men), the ideal image of a woman is a well-nourished and breast-feeding, pregnant, All-Mother, source of all life.

That is, of course, making a huge assumption as to what the figures meant.

The number of unsupported assumptions present in the post are... many.

 

[Haldrik]

You know, I think you ought to stop unilaterally declaring what human sexuality is or is not.

You acknowledge that samesex happens in prisons?

It is fact.

It doesnt sound controversial to me.

 

[Aldarc]

As a former archaeology student

I apologize if this seems like a personal attack, because that is not my intention because you are not unique in this pattern when it comes to discussions on the internet. I know. Great start. You are right to ask for academic citations for assertions made about paleolithic cultures - particularly when it seems to almost venture into evolutionary psychology territory :shudders: - but to preface a standard request for citations with "as a former archaeology student" seems a bit unnecessary and it almost undercuts your point.* If you don't mind me a bit of writing feedback, I probably would have gone with something more along the lines of...

I mean, it sounds perfectly nice and all, but I'd be veeeery cautious with such elaborate statements concerning the minds and the cultures of palaeolithic tribes.

As a former archaeology student [insert a statement about how you gained an awareness of the complexity about the sort assertions we can make about paleolithic societies], so I would be curious about what evidence or peer-reviewed papers you could cite that would back these claims up.

That way you also end on the call to action for the respondent (i.e., provide a citation).

* the "former... student" part can potentially come across like how Joe Schmoe at your work office thinks that having an undergraduate degree in philosophy from 30 years ago makes him a philosopher with smart things to say.

All that said, I don't think that Haldrik needs to make an appeal to pre-history, human/bonobo evolution, and borderline "state of nature" arguments to prove that human sexuality is pretty gosh darn queer enough to challenge a lot of the prevailing narratives surrounding hetero-normativity. The queerness of human sexuality is fairly evident in numerous studies of gender/sexuality in recorded history, anthropology, psychology, and biological science.

 

[Umbran]

You acknowledge that samesex happens in prisons?

I acknowledge that it happens everywhere. And bisexuality most certainly exists.

It is the likening of what happens in prison to be "biological fact" that is problematic.

 

[Haldrik]

If a culture uses violence and censorship against gays, then the result is that only heterosexuality is allowed to be visible.

This kind of assumption of heterosexuality is a fragile illusion that depends on violence.

It is like any kind of political totalitarianism. If one murders everyone who disagrees, the resulting "unanimity" is inherently evil, violent, ... and fragile.

A single question mark if able to find a voice can destroy this kind of totalitarianism.

 

[Umbran]

* the "former... student" part can potentially come across like how Joe Schmoe at your work office thinks that having an undergraduate degree in philosophy from 30 years ago makes him a philosopher with smart things to say.

Cut him some slack, Aldarc. Yes, it was an appeal to authority, with weaknesses.

However, someone with at least some formal background noting that the study is a science and that citations are called for, is reasonable.

All that said, I don't think that Haldrik needs to make an appeal to pre-history...

No. But he did, and did so poorly. That is relevant. If anything, it strengthens need for citations on further claims - if you talk through your hat once, it is reasonable to question further proclamations.

 

[5atbu]

If people didn't talk through their hats we wouldn't have a hobby...

I do agree, some citations or humble IMHO caveats would have helped.

As it is, @Haldrik was channeling one very prevalent Goddess view of paleolithic cultures, not that I am saying it's right. However, IMHO..

Diner, Helen (1965). Mothers and Amazons. Julian Press.

Fagan, Brian M., Beck, Charlotte, "Venus Figurines", The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, 1996, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780195076189

 

[Fenris-77]

As someone who has a bunch of letters after his name, let me say that no degree, recent or not, is as guarantee that a person has anything interesting or clever to say. Degree or not, claims about history and/or science are far more palatable with a citation of some sort.