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.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, it's a complex issue, and one that has already moved away from "all orcs are evil" over the generations of D&D editions. There's probably no clear line, which is why discussion and a diverse writing staff are necessary!

Reading that literally, it tells me it's necessary for WotC to have orcs on their writing staff.

This is a very interesting rabbit hole we've found...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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?

No, it isn't. If you honestly think it is, at this point, after this much discussion, I'm not sure I'm a person who can help you to understand.

It's about problematic material being produced by WotC, and the impact that has, particularly on minorities who are already dealing with oppression. It's not about whether you're feeling slightly stung because some rando on a messageboard told you that you aren't a racist, but you maybe thought he might not mean it. I mean, if you really believe that it is, sorry, you're wrong, and you're confused, and probably beyond help, because you can't tell the difference between a corporation perpetuating racist stereotypes or at least getting dangerously close to doing so, in published products, which are sold for money, from you thinking a dude on a messageboard maybe doesn't think you're a good person.

On another level, a lot of this is about future-proofing D&D. The reality is, some of the ideas that have been historically common in D&D are no longer cool. Times change. WotC aren't idiots. They aren't ideologues. They're not politicians. They're a corporation, that want to make money. In order to keep selling their product, particularly to younger people (who according to surveys, are the vast majority of the audience), they want to keep it with the times, not to become a historical artifact. The reality is, even if D&D made no changes, it would be unlikely to attract much criticism in the mainstream or get "cancelled" by any significant number of people (though if we had another, worse, better-evidenced version of the Mearls incident, it definitely could). But would it be increasingly less popular with people under about 35? Yeah. Yeah it would. It's not like that hasn't happened before. In the 2E era, it wasn't social issues, but it was out-of-touch-ness that lead to TSR falling as White Wolf rose. Even in the 4E era, it was a completely different form of out-of-touch-ness. Other grogs may remember the terrible adverts with a European-accented person mocking older editions, which almost seemed like a parody, except they weren't (like genuinely they seem like something from the Simpsons). And even some of the basic ideas of 4E, much as I approve of them, were ones which helped to split the audience.

You keep harping on about "hurt" and "offended" (and no, that's definitely not hyperbole, you've used both words over and over), but what you don't realize is that it doesn't have to rise to even that level to be deleterious. You don't need to throw out all your D&D books and block Jeremy Crawford on Twitter to decide "Hmmmm, D&D is kind of for old fogeys and has some creepy stuff in it, maybe I'll buy this other RPG instead". And yeah, that's not really happening yet. D&D is riding high. But WotC want to keep it that way, or as close to that way as they can, not to let it slip. And these changes are part of that.

It's interesting that the changes being made seem calculated not to "split the audience", either - nothing they're suggesting is likely to actually offend many people. We're about as groggy as it gets here for people who actually play and buy 5E stuff (there are far groggier places, but they don't, by and large, so are irrelevant), and the number of people who are even mildly put out by these suggestions is pretty small. Most people don't care, and a lot of people think they're a good thing. And we're at the extreme end.

 

[Maxperson]

But, why can orc ONLY be always evil?

This has never been the case, though, in any edition. Starting in 1e(probably before that) always <insert alignment> was just a general way that species of creature acted. There have been individual exceptions in every edition.

 

[Cadence]

This has never been the case, though, in any edition. Starting in 1e(probably before that) always <insert alignment> was just a general way that species of creature acted. There have been individual exceptions in every edition.

I mean, there's always been rule 0 right? But I assume you meant something more than that.

Going through B/X I don't recall anything beyond that hinting at an exception. Instead we are reminded: "The DM should be careful to play the alignment of each monster correctly."

 

[BookTenTiger]

Reading that literally, it tells me it's necessary for WotC to have orcs on their writing staff.

This is a very interesting rabbit hole we've found...

Really?

Help me out here, what do you think I actually meant by this?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Regarding D&D products, including the OA, I agree there is no hate. The offensiveness has much to do with an earlier era, including problematic assumptions, cultural alienation, and "well-meaning" tone-deafness.

One of the forumers explained how nicknaming a Japanese person "Ninja", for no other reason than being Japanese, was an example of something that would make one uncomfortable. Even tho the nicknamer probably admires ninjas and means it as complement, one can see how racist it is to do that.

So the first time is problematic and innocent. But after being told that the nickname was offensive, if the nicknamer kept on doing anyway, it could become a kind of hateful racial slur.

So something less serious can become more serious if it persists.

I agree that "pastiche" can allow unconscious racist tropes to resurface in new ways.

Yes, this is well put. I can't think of any first party D&D products which are sort of "intentionally racist", but that in no way prevents them being problematic.

Re: well-meaning tone-deafness, the Vistani are a strong example. D&D in non-4E editions took a similar (though less incredibly awful) approach to them as White Wolf did, which was to "fight intentional racism with thoughtless racism", as it were, but portraying the Vistani as a mystical race that was "better than human", and totally failing to see how dehumanizing a group by saying they're exactly like humans but better isn't really that great when the group they're based on has historically been dehumanized by saying they're exactly like humans but worse. Especially as they then indulged virtually every cheap stereotype about gypsies, albeit some with a positive spin, assuming this was cool because they were saying these people were "better than human".

Sigh. I feel like going back to this in 5E, after it had been pointed out quite a lot of times through 1E to 4E, and indeed, 4E had course-corrected on it, was surprising and disappointing, I suspect WotC realized this which is why they very quickly and aggressively fixed it recently.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So what's wrong with orcs always being evil? I agree you can have orcs of all alignments, but for me personally I would have no use for orcs. That tribe of barbarians that threatens civilization? They become humans.

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.

Well, I'm sorry you get bored by it. But if Orcs are just humanity's Id, well, I find that boring as well. "Oh look, the big strong thing wants to smash and kill all of us." They are just matte black and yawn inducing. There is only so high you can raise the stakes with something that murders everyone and is just "evil of humanity".

And again, "human with a rubber mask" is 99% of everything in the book. Rakshasa? Human with a tiger mask. Asmodeus? Human with devil horns. Dragons? Human with rubber mask. Vampires? Human with plastic teeth.

But, I do find it interesting that the moment we make orcs more than just evil, you change them to humans. You really can't picture as anything other than monsters bent on destruction. And, that I think drives to the heart of the problem. Orcs, presented as savage raiders who smash stuff... have nothing else interesting going on with them. They are practically 1-dimensional stage props. I want to make them more interesting, give them depth, because I think that will make things better.

But there's nothing new here other than people telling me that the "correct" way is for orcs to have any alignment while dodging questions about whether beholders or other monsters should have any alignment.

No, beholders shouldn't have alignments either. Insane manipulators seeking treasure and death, born from the dreams of other beholders, sometimes as even more twisted creatures is far more interesting than saying "chaotic evil" and walking away.

Oh, and @Chaosmancer if by "appearance defines evil" well, yes. If it's a floating beach ball with eye stalks you probably recognize it as an evil beholder. If it looks like an orc, it's an orc and it's evil. It's not evil because of it's appearance, it's evil because of it's (supernaturally influenced) nature.

Succubus/Incubi are incredibly attractive and still evil. But yes, for better or worse it's a common trope that ugly is evil. Would it be different if all orcs had a 16 charisma? I use Sidhe in my campaign on a fairly regular basis. Both male and female Sidhe generally have the equivalent of a 20+ charisma and many are evil (particularly those from the unseelie court). Heck, even the "good" ones are often inscrutable and have motives people simply don't understand.

Succubi and Incubi are the "sexuality and seductress" trope, so of course they are beautiful. But, that about covers it.

And, here is the flip side. There are no ugly creatures that are Good. Or at least, I've never registered a single one. Especially not a humanoid looking one.

This isn't, well you beholders look like this, and beholders are evil, so if you see something that looks like this it is likely an evil beholder.

 

[Cadence]

No, beholders shouldn't have alignments either. Insane manipulators seeking treasure and death, born from the dreams of other beholders, sometimes as even more twisted creatures is far more interesting than saying "chaotic evil" and walking away.

And (h/t to @Maxperson ) don't forget

Large Luigi

Large Luigi was a beholder who ascended the Spindle on the planet H'Catha and thereby obtained ultimate knowledge of the universe. With that knowledge, he settled down to become the proprietor, bartender, and bouncer of his tavern, the Happy Beholder in the city of Bral in the mid-to-late 14th...

forgottenrealms.fandom.com

 

[Oofta]

Well, I'm sorry you get bored by it. But if Orcs are just humanity's Id, well, I find that boring as well. "Oh look, the big strong thing wants to smash and kill all of us." They are just matte black and yawn inducing. There is only so high you can raise the stakes with something that murders everyone and is just "evil of humanity".

And again, "human with a rubber mask" is 99% of everything in the book. Rakshasa? Human with a tiger mask. Asmodeus? Human with devil horns. Dragons? Human with rubber mask. Vampires? Human with plastic teeth.

But, I do find it interesting that the moment we make orcs more than just evil, you change them to humans. You really can't picture as anything other than monsters bent on destruction. And, that I think drives to the heart of the problem. Orcs, presented as savage raiders who smash stuff... have nothing else interesting going on with them. They are practically 1-dimensional stage props. I want to make them more interesting, give them depth, because I think that will make things better.





No, beholders shouldn't have alignments either. Insane manipulators seeking treasure and death, born from the dreams of other beholders, sometimes as even more twisted creatures is far more interesting than saying "chaotic evil" and walking away.



Succubi and Incubi are the "sexuality and seductress" trope, so of course they are beautiful. But, that about covers it.

And, here is the flip side. There are no ugly creatures that are Good. Or at least, I've never registered a single one. Especially not a humanoid looking one.

This isn't, well you beholders look like this, and beholders are evil, so if you see something that looks like this it is likely an evil beholder.

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't. Oh wait that's not right. Sometimes I want simple sometimes I don't. That's better. Doesn't work for you? Do what does.

Anyway, just going to reiterate that I'm done because this is an endless loop. Basically 2 versions with minor differences.

Version A
1. I don't see a problem with monsters, including orcs always being evil. They serve a purpose in the game. Change alignments to what makes sense for your campaign.
2. But why not have only some orcs be evil?
3. That's fine. Do what makes sense for your campaign.
4. Okay, but why not have only some orcs be evil?
5. Go to step 1

Throw in the implied "complex orcs are better because I say they are."

Repeat.

Version B
1. I don't see a problem with monsters, including orcs always being evil. They serve a purpose in the game. Change alignments to what makes sense for your campaign.
2. It's racist/laughably stupid/regressive to have only evil orcs.
3. Do what makes sense for your campaign, it's a game, orcs aren't real. Why is it okay for fiends to be (virtually) always evil but not orcs?
4. We aren't talking about fiends. Pay attention, orcs are different because I said they were. It's racist/laughably stupid/regressive to have only evil orcs.
5. Go to step 1

Throw in the implied "I'm not saying you're racist/laughably stupid/regressive, but all of your ideas and opinions are racist/laughably stupid/regressive."

 

[Remathilis]

But, I do find it interesting that the moment we make orcs more than just evil, you change them to humans. You really can't picture as anything other than monsters bent on destruction. And, that I think drives to the heart of the problem. Orcs, presented as savage raiders who smash stuff... have nothing else interesting going on with them. They are practically 1-dimensional stage props. I want to make them more interesting, give them depth, because I think that will make things better.

Pretend I'm a new player to D&D who has either no idea what an orc is or is familiar with several different conflicting variants (Warcraft, Elder Scrolls, Tolkien).

Now explain to me what an orc is in no more than two sentences. What encompasses orcdom in D&D? What makes an orc different than a human, a dwarf, a hobgoblin or a goliath?

Do not use the words: savage, tribal, raider, destructive, or evil. Or any other racist language.