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.

 

[Remathilis]

Yeah, I get it. It doesn't matter much to my home campaign, I just won't allow those races just like I don't currently allow Drow or Dragonborn.

I just think the game loses a level of simplicity and easy to grasp concepts that are easier to add in than take out. So it's one thing if they expand and expound on the concept of monsters of any type not following the default alignment, it's another if they get rid of alignment altogether.

I don't expect any dramatic changes anytime soon though, last I checked 5E is still going strong and I don't think 6E will happen (if it does) until that changes.

Ironically, it doesn't affect me either since I've been running Eberron off and on for a few years now, but I agree that the loss of the simpler "good peoples vs. evil monster" narrative is coming to an end. Hell, part of the allure of Eberron is that it has different takes on all peoples, and some of that is that not all elves are mystical woodland types and not all orcs are savage. But that is unique to Eberron the way I wouldn't want draconians or defiling to become part of the core.

 

[Remathilis]

There are a couple problems with this line of reasoning. Unlike how you wish to view orcs, nazis and stormtroopers aren't born evil—they have aligned themselves with and work for a political and military organization that is evil and espouses an evil ideology. They have chosen to be evil either through action (signing up with the evil organization) or through inaction ("just following orders"). More over, both nazis and stormtroopers are capable of renouncing their alegiance to their evil organization and ideology (with examples in history and fiction). So, yes, we don't feel bad for them when they are killed in fiction but it's because that work for an evil organization and work to advance that organization.

While that may be true of some Imperial officers, it's important to remember that the Stormtroopers were a mix of clones (PT), recruits (OT) and children stolen and indoctrinated from birth (ST). Many were brainwashed from birth to serve the Empire/FO never questioning the cause. There are as many examples of Renegade stormtroopers as there are Renegade drow.

Yet I don't think it's a far stretch to label the Stormtroopers LE based on the society they were raised in. Likewise a drow would have to fight his impulses and programming to be anything but CE.

And keep this in mind: Palpatine had entire legion's of Sithtroopers under his command on Exegol that not only were raised under imperial military training, but also Sith teachings. And they stayed on Exegol for decades under Palpatine's control. And Palps is equal to a powerful wizard in D&D; imagine what a God could do...

 

[Cadence]

My thoughts as well. In Star Wars we have Storm Troopers, in a lot of other games we have Nazi soldiers. How many get mowed down in movies and games?

From a game design perspective, having them as the go to bad guy serves a very specific purpose. If I'm playing a Star Wars game I know the storm troopers are the bad guys. Unless it's specified otherwise in the campaign when I'm playing D&D the orcs are the bad guys. I can set aside the real world and just roll some dice and have fun.

I know what changes you've said you're fine with in the published game, so please don't take this as being aimed at you @Oofta or your choices in your home campaign. I'm just brain dumping, and your post gave me a good thing to respond to.

Should Kevin in "The Survivors" episode of ST:TNG have bothered feeling bad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Survivors_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation and if so, about what action or inaction?

We've been bingeing Hogan's Heroes lately. For a kill the Nazi game, is there a difference if they're Gestapo or Wehrmacht? For the Wehermacht, if they're in combat or not? If they're following the Geneva convention (mostly) or not for prisoners? If some are actively trying to arrange a coup or defect? Is taking them out strategically without a thought when arranging an ambush or destruction of a munitions factory or secret base different than just murdering all of the guards at 13 in their sleep? Why stop at just a munitions plant with civilian workers inside and not treat it all like Dresden? Are all the German's bad? What if the German press had reported as early as 1933 what was going on at Dachau but most of the public didn't do anything, does that change it? What if everyone had known and many were complicit, many became desensitized? What if many would have helped in the resistance like in Hogan's Heroes if they were given the opportunity? What if many would have turned in the young diarist in the attic? Were those fighting on the same side... but under Stalin awful too? Were those among the good guys who burned crosses in the yards of their African American now colleagues before the war, and would do so again after, better?

When you trace the orc raiding party that you justly killed back to the village that's now mostly women and children is it different than Wounded Knee if the MM says Evil in a stat box? Does it matter if that's absolute in the B/X sense or wishy washy like the other versions with their "usually" and "can be a PC" disclaimers? If the orcs are all evil and you had a wish spell to wipe them all out, would you be bad to do so? Is it ok to wipe out Bears and Hippos and Elephants and Lions and Wolves and Rattle Snakes if they're encroaching on your expanding farm or ranch land and your only interactions with them are violently instigated by them?

What's lost if the kill on sight when they're not bothering you right now bad guys are skeletons or demons or far-realm-servitors or alien-movie-aliens instead of storm troopers or nazi's or orcs?

Seems like the evidence about movies and games about just mowing things down doesn't make people do it more in the real world. Is there any evidence if whether having to think about it in the movies and games makes people less likely to just mow people down in the real world?

 

[Doug McCrae]

The orc in the dungeon room is exactly like stumbling upon a hungry predator: if you don't kill him, you'll be killed, and there is no hope to turn a tiger into a productive member of society. An orc was absolutely evil, a threat, not something remotely like a real people, just a monster with no agency, no free will, only being evil...

I don't think there is a lot of debate on judging a carrot is food based on its appearance, or a mosquito can be squashed based on its appearance. Most people will stop the propagation of locusts to protect their harvests, even if locusts are not really trying to harm them but just being locusts, judged on their appearance.

But that's the problem. Orcs have never been like tigers, mosquitoes, or locusts (if they were they would have neutral alignment in most editions). Orcs are almost exactly the same as humans. They are sentient, intelligent beings. They have language. They wear clothing. They use tools. They are social beings. They live in societies. They raise children.

This is my summary of the issue, slightly expanded from a previous post:

1. Orcs and similar monsters are almost exactly the same as humans: shape, size, biological needs, bear children, social beings, etc.
2. The respects in which they are not like humans correspond to racist ideas about non-white people: evil, bloodthirsty, devil worship, widespread cannibalism* and human** sacrifice, sexual threat, fecund, dominant "genetic" traits, bestial, physically superior, low intelligence, uncivilised, primitive, superstitious, always tribal, incapable of forming state societies.
3. These traits are racial, biological, and inherited. This is the same as race "science", which started in the late 19th century and continues to the present day.
4. Orcs and similar monsters do possess some real non-negative traits of non-white peoples - non-white skin, shamans and witch doctors, hobgoblin's Japanese-style armour, etc.

*Referring to eating any sentient being not just their own kind
**Or any other sentient being

A monster bandit, you can reasonably kill him, since he's just a predator on humanity, with no free will, and therefore not worry about whether baby orcs will die.

There have been concerns about orc (and other evil humanoid) children in D&D for decades. It's been a contentious point for almost as long as the game has existed.

EDIT:

An orc was absolutely evil, a threat, not something remotely like a real people, just a monster with no agency, no free will, only being evil...

It allows for "orcs" to be both rather intelligent (able to work in groups, lay traps, sound alarm, regroup after fleeing), therefore being a fun monster to fight

This here is the problem. You say that orcs are "not something remotely like a real people" then you go on to say that they make fun opponents because... they are a lot like people!

 

[Cadence]

Yet I don't think it's a far stretch to label the Stormtroopers LE based on the society they were raised in.

If we're making a game using various historical forces, would a society that wrote, enforced, and accepted the Requireimento be LE? Spanish Requirement of 1513 - Wikipedia

 

[Remathilis]

If we're making a game using various historical forces, would a society that wrote, enforced, and accepted the Requireimento be LE? Spanish Requirement of 1513 - Wikipedia

Depends on the context; are we supposed to be aligned with servant of a benevolent deity who is saving the world from the monstrous servants of darkness or are we aligned with the indigenous people who are protecting themselves from a technologically superior group hell-bent on erasing them in the name of their intolerant faith?

That's the thing about fiction; we can have only one of those be true if we want. Reality forces us to view that event in the lens of moral relativism and bothsidesism. We have the power to make one side right and one wrong. We have the ability to make this Lord of the Rings or Avatar.

D&D is especially good for this because Good and Evil are cosmic forces that can define people, places, things and societies. We can label orcs evil and elves good, or elves evil and orcs good and we'd be right. If D&D moves from this position, you will end up with situations resembling what you outlined: both sides fighting from a perspective they after right and good, the other evil and wrong, and both would be correct from their point of view, effectively neutering the cosmic definition of Good and Evil, forcing everything into a gray, neutral zone of relativism.

When that happens, why have alignment anymore?

 

[prabe]

When that happens, why have alignment anymore?

Maybe a group (or at least a DM) wants to poke at the idea that both sides can be wrong (or right). After all, mortals commit errors that immortals might not (or at least not as frequently). If one is willing/able to separate absolute alignment (the Outer Planes) from mortal experience, one might end up with a different kind of interesting story. It's not what I'm doing in the campaigns I'm DMing, but there's no reason it shouldn't be possible.

 

[Oofta]

Let's say I'm running a campaign is in the hinterlands. A common theme is civilization on the edge, people worried about getting wiped off the map.

A great option for that existential threat is orcs as written in the MM. Raiding hordes, particular hatred of elves. Okay, now let's say the humans and the elves aren't on the best of terms, maybe an alliance can be formed. Somebody wants to play a half orc? Cool, some human barbarians allied with the orcs. Both sides plan to wipe each other out eventually but in the mean time, let's have some fun and some babies.

Awesome. Start of a simple campaign with a couple of easy to grasp hooks, especially if I'm a newbie DM.

But let's say orcs don't have an alignment. Suddenly I have no go-to existential evil threat that everybody knows about*. I don't see why I need orcs at all at this point, I can just use that human barbarian tribe.

Or I have some good orcs, some bad. Okay, I still want a way to identify the bad orcs. Okay, they all have the same religion. They all wear cloth hats made of strips of cloth that they wrap around their heads. Radical terrorist orcs ... oh ... wait. Oops. I just made them a copy of a real world group of people.

Maybe they just tend to be violent and evil menace to society like, I don't know "super predators". D'oh! That doesn't work either.

Okay so scrap the super predator angle, scrap the headdress. Nobody will notice that if someone is from a specific region and worships a specific religion they're evil radical terrorists. But what if I kill all the soldiers? What about the wife and kids they left at home, am I now responsible for them? Suddenly we're spending more time discussing the morality and responsibilities of war than playing a beer and pretzels game.

This is the reason I want evil orcs as a clear option, more than just "tradition". I think a game is better if it supports both "traditional" tropes of good vs evil and subverting those tropes into invaders vs indigenous people or somewhere in between.

If you subvert those tropes for specific campaigns like Eberron, fantastic! It's showing of the strength of the game's flexibility. Like alignment? Use it. Don't like it? Ignore it, there's nothing mechanical about it anyway.

*I assume the vast majority of people that will play D&D are familiar with evil orcs from LOTR.

 

[Remathilis]

Maybe a group (or at least a DM) wants to poke at the idea that both sides can be wrong (or right). After all, mortals commit errors that immortals might not (or at least not as frequently). If one is willing/able to separate absolute alignment (the Outer Planes) from mortal experience, one might end up with a different kind of interesting story. It's not what I'm doing in the campaigns I'm DMing, but there's no reason it shouldn't be possible.

Sure it's possible. Ignore the alignment or make both sides Neutral. Nothing had stopped that from happening for 40 years, but should be the default assumption of the game? I'd argue it would be every alignment argument ever, but I on steroids if that is what the game defaulted to...

 

[prabe]

Sure it's possible. Ignore the alignment or make both sides Neutral. Nothing had stopped that from happening for 40 years, but should be the default assumption of the game? I'd argue it would be every alignment argument ever, but I on steroids if that is what the game defaulted to...

I was really thinking about making both sides Good ...