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.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's not my counter-argument, it's some weird nonsense you've made up.

My counter-argument was that it's not about "feelings".

I'm sorry, I was trying to be fair to your argument and not to make up one you never made. It's certainly possible that you disagree with the major premise of my position - that the feelings of others matter. Is that true? Is there some nuance in your position where some feelings matter and others do not and if so what principle do you use to determine which feelings matter and which do not?

You're yammering on about the "initial principle", but that's not "the initial principle". You're just making up nonsense to serve your terrible ragged "argument" at this point. You're arguing with yourself.

The basic premise of all these discussions centers around people being hurt or offended and it mattering. That's why all these discussions have been taking place. Do you disagree? If so what is your view?

By the way: "yammering", "nonsense", "terrible ragged argument", "arguing with yourself". I seem to recall a recent post about hyperbole. Does it apply here?

Also can I just say that I really don't think it's appropriate to act like your supposedly hurt feelings that you might have been suggested to be a racist (when you weren't) are equal to or more important than those of people impacted by tropes in material put out by WotC.

Why is it not appropriate to talk about my feelings? Why aren't my feeling of equal importance to anyone elses? And in the event that someones feelings should matter more, who or what gets to be the judge?

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, considering how calling someone racist would be against board rules, did you report the offending posts? And, did those reports go anywhere?

It's against the rules for me to discuss moderation.

See, I'm having a rather tough time gathering a whole lot of sympathy here because, well, I have directly seen and I can quote if you like, several posts directly insulting me, denigrating me, telling me that I'm "manufacturing outrage", comparing me to all sorts of real world people and so on. Would you like the list?

I'm sure you have been. That doesn't justify similar things happening to you or others. And maybe more importantly, has anything been said about you that's the equivalent of someone categorizing you as a racist? There are vastly different levels of insults IMO.

Also of importance, online discussions tend to go the way of an "eye for an eye" so to speak. So while it doesn't justify such behavior, if you had first insulted or denigrated others or accused them of any other sorts of bad behavior it's normal for retaliation to be in kind. If those things were said of you, are you sure you didn't start it and/or escalate it at every turn?

See, you, and @Oofta are complaining that you feel like you've been called a racist. Yet, I missed all the posters getting booted out of threads for that. I do recall the posters getting the boot for all sorts of violations, but, I missed those ones.

It's against the rules for me to discuss moderation.

The only thing AFAIK, that's been compared to racism is the text describing various elements in D&D. And, again, that's not an opinion. That's an objective fact. You can place the descriptions side by side, as has been done repeatedly, and demonstrate how this language is mirroring racist language. I mean, good grief, pretty much everyone now agrees that the language should be changed.

That was certainly declared racists, along with anyone that challenged the idea that it actually was racist. I'm not saying it was explicit claims or even that any of the comments rose to the level of violating any rules (that's up to the mods to determine), but when something is said in such a way that multiple people feel it's labelling them as a racist then I don't think you can just dismiss their feelings either.

Maybe if you would like to feel like you are contributing more, perhaps pointing out when ALL people cross the line, instead of just the people you digree with, might help.

I can't do that. Calling others out as rulebreakers is against forum rules.

 

[Hugh Jenkins]

To me, this is another example of catering to players' desire for power benefits without annoying restrictions. Hey, why not seek out a vampire and get infected? Just because you're now literally blood-thirsty doesn't make you a bad person; you can always just seek out a humanoid who deserves to be sucked on... or a poor wretch, say an old, sick prostitute, whose death is a kindness, really, and allows you to continue to use your enhanced powers to advance your so-much-more important goals. Vampire Paladins rule!

Back in the day (AD&D-ish), there was a distinction made between the soul and the spirit. Some gods created sentient beings possessed of souls, and the free will that made those beings choose between good and evil; other gods/demons created servants and/or monsters imbued with the spirit of their creator. Simplistic? Sure. But useful for fantasy adventuring, where hungry monsters lurk in dark forests and caverns, and it's not useful to ask, "Are they just trying to feed their monster children?"

 

[Panda-s1]

To me, this is another example of catering to players' desire for power benefits without annoying restrictions. Hey, why not seek out a vampire and get infected? Just because you're now literally blood-thirsty doesn't make you a bad person; you can always just seek out a humanoid who deserves to be sucked on... or a poor wretch, say an old, sick prostitute, whose death is a kindness, really, and allows you to continue to use your enhanced powers to advance your so-much-more important goals. Vampire Paladins rule!

Back in the day (AD&D-ish), there was a distinction made between the soul and the spirit. Some gods created sentient beings possessed of souls, and the free will that made those beings choose between good and evil; other gods/demons created servants and/or monsters imbued with the spirit of their creator. Simplistic? Sure. But useful for fantasy adventuring, where hungry monsters lurk in dark forests and caverns, and it's not useful to ask, "Are they just trying to feed their monster children?"

real life doesn't have an alignment system, and yet if someone went around eating people because they said needed the sustenance they'd be charged with serial murder. even without an alignment system the town guard or local church is still allowed to hunt down a paladin vampire going around murdering innocent people.

 

[Oofta]

To me, this is another example of catering to players' desire for power benefits without annoying restrictions. Hey, why not seek out a vampire and get infected? Just because you're now literally blood-thirsty doesn't make you a bad person; you can always just seek out a humanoid who deserves to be sucked on... or a poor wretch, say an old, sick prostitute, whose death is a kindness, really, and allows you to continue to use your enhanced powers to advance your so-much-more important goals. Vampire Paladins rule!

Back in the day (AD&D-ish), there was a distinction made between the soul and the spirit. Some gods created sentient beings possessed of souls, and the free will that made those beings choose between good and evil; other gods/demons created servants and/or monsters imbued with the spirit of their creator. Simplistic? Sure. But useful for fantasy adventuring, where hungry monsters lurk in dark forests and caverns, and it's not useful to ask, "Are they just trying to feed their monster children?"

Which all goes back to something I posted oh so long ago in a thread long closed. What purpose do monsters serve in the game? Along with why are intelligent creatures handled differently if they're vaguely shaped like humans?

It also relates to Crawford's post - if it make sense to have a good orc do it. If it makes sense to have a good demon, consider it done. Which, if that's what you want in your game fantastic! It might even be a game I could enjoy.

But most of the time I just want monsters to be easily identified as monsters whether that's because they're hulking brutes with green skin and tusks or because they smell of sulfur, have red skin. horns and a tail.

It's a separate issue from some of the wording and imagery that has been traditionally used.

 

[Panda-s1]

But most of the time I just want monsters to be easily identified as monsters whether that's because they're hulking brutes with green skin and tusks or because they smell of sulfur, have red skin. horns and a tail.

It's a separate issue from some of the wording and imagery that has been traditionally used.

"easily identified"? we're talking about playing pretend around a table with other people. I don't need the bad guys to be green with horns to know who I need to fight. even in video games and movies with no monsters or aliens it's fairly visually obvious who the bad guys are supposed to be.

 

[Haldrik]

Why is it not appropriate to talk about my feelings?

Your feelings matter. You come across as a decent guy, so I want to be clear that what I am about to say has nothing to do with you. I am just speaking abstractly about principles that apply to all of us equally.



Feelings matter.

At the same time, the feelings of a bully are complicated.

Our feelings of irrational hate are dangerous. They are what they are, but require us to harness such feelings constructively and ethically.

Hatespeech that derives from hate is censorable. Hatecrimes that derive from hate are punishable.

First comes the thought/feeling, then comes the speech, then comes the action.



The feeling of anger is a healthy response to a "perceived injustice". At the same time, we must doublecheck to make sure that our "perception" is accurate in the first place. Perhaps, under scrutiny, there does appear to be an injustice. Then we have to channel this anger in compassionate and patient ways, to motivate us to speak out for the sake of justice, and to do our own share of the hard work to help achieve a more fair community.

 

[Haldrik]

Along with why are intelligent creatures handled differently if they're vaguely shaped like humans?

It is mechanically possible for a Dragon or an Ooze to be "Humanoid".

Compare the Eladrin. It can be either "Fey" or "Humanoid".

If Humanoid, then the creature type has freewill, and each individual chooses ones own alignment.



I agree, the terminology is confusing. I would much rather the terms be closer to natural English. Because the weird terminology creates unnecessary confusion. The word "humanoid" really does seem to mean the physical shape of the creature. And to use such a word to mean instead the inner soul, is confusing. The opposite of communication.

For example, I prefer the termonology to be.

"Humanoid" = vaguely human shape, bipedal, etcetera.

"Person" = freewill, personal choice of alignment.



Thus, an Eladrin is a Fey Person. (But not all Eladrin are persons. Some are just forces of fate and nature without freewill.)

A Dragon might be a Dragon Person.

A Human is a Humanoid Person.

And so on.

I feel the word "Person" (or something similar) communicates the creature type concept better than "Humanoid" does.

 

[Mercurius]

If Humanoid, then the creature type has freewill, and each individual chooses ones own alignment.

It depends upon the assumptions of the campaign and setting. My books are currently packed away, so don't know what the RAW say on this (if anything), but I still think it is campaign-based. No reason why a DM couldn't design humanoids that lack free will, or have it only in a rudimentary manner.

And that doesn't even touch into real-world philosophies around the nature of "free will" and to what degree it exists. But maybe not the right time and place .

 

[BookTenTiger]

Which all goes back to something I posted oh so long ago in a thread long closed. What purpose do monsters serve in the game? Along with why are intelligent creatures handled differently if they're vaguely shaped like humans?

It also relates to Crawford's post - if it make sense to have a good orc do it. If it makes sense to have a good demon, consider it done. Which, if that's what you want in your game fantastic! It might even be a game I could enjoy.

But most of the time I just want monsters to be easily identified as monsters whether that's because they're hulking brutes with green skin and tusks or because they smell of sulfur, have red skin. horns and a tail.

I think this is a really, really easily solvable problem, even if alignment were removed.

DM: You see some orcs ahead. They have gnome skulls tied to the handles of their axes.
Paladin: Oh, these must be the orcs who have been raiding gnome villages.

Fight begins.

or:

DM: You see some orcs ahead. They are walking next to a wagon.
Range: I am going to hide in a tree and look closer.
DM: The wagon is full of pigs.
Paladin: Oh, these must be those orc pig farmers who live up the road.

or:

DM: You see some figures up ahead. It looks like a mix of orcs, humans, and goblins. They carry a banner with the symbol of a bloody ax.
Wizard: Oh no! that's the symbol of the Bloody Ax Bandits!
DM: Roll initiative!

Oofta, I have seen you bring this up a few times in various threads. I don't think anyone disagrees with you that having easily identifiable enemies is both a tradition in D&D and a fun part of playing the game. In fact, I would love it if the standard D&D rulebook had more ways to easily identify the bad guys! Maybe under "Orcs" in the Monster Manual, they could give a few different examples of orcs that would serve as "easily identifiable antagonists" to the players!

You even identify that this is a separate issue:

It's a separate issue from some of the wording and imagery that has been traditionally used.

But maybe it's time to let go of the "how they look represents if they are evil or not" trope. I know you really like this one, and it's pretty deeply embedded in fantasy, but do you see how this idea of judging if something is good or evil based on its appearance alone can be problematic?

There are just so many other ways to quickly identify if something is an antagonist or not.