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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No, being Good is usually encouraging good acts in others (altruism, kindness, charity and mercy) while expressing those traits yourself.

It's also refraining from evil (harming others) and often also about stopping others from doing evil.

Right, which is why I wanted Haldrik to clarify why Chaos being organized by choice was different than Law. Because that implies that Law doesn't allow for choice, which goes against the idea of good.

That said, it's a big change to remove alignment proclivities based on species in D&D. Instead of the story being they were created to be evil, the story becomes that they chose to be evil and that each and every individual in their society chooses to be evil. I think the only reason those kinds of stories seem okay, if not outright better to many right now is that they haven't had 20+ years to reflect on them.

I mean foundationally, the change even goes to the very notion of good and evil gods. Why would an evil god ever create a species that's going to be good.? Why would a good god create a species that's not inclined toward goodness? Can you see how the whole cosmology does seem to be weakened by this one change?

If good gods wouldn't create mortals who could choose evil, I suppose free-will isn't a thing. And if Evil gods aren't creating species, seems for a good reason to drop them for being like Demon Lords who are corrupting otherwise good things. Seems to make a great cosmology.

Something like that.

In its extreme, pure Law makes it impossible to be Good.

But yeah, Lawful Good does lean in that direction. The Good often gets compromised because of being Lawful.

That is why Lawful Good is less good than Neutral Good.

Got it, a lot of time people point to LG as the highest form of Good, which is why I wanted to check.

 

[Remathilis]

One person's lawful good is another person's lawful evil, depending on which side you're on.

That is the best argument for removing alignment from D&D. If the terms are subjective and meaningless, they have no use in the game.

 

[Flamestrike]

Sigh. I guess Gary, like Tolkien or Lovecraft, is a product of his time.

He's a product of many things. He had quite strong religious beliefs as well that would have coloured his moral reasoning as well (rightly or wrongly).

Lovecraft was a flat out White supremacist, antisemite, bigot, admirer of Hitler, and racist in the extreme:

We Can’t Ignore H.P. Lovecraft’s White Supremacy

He is utterly indefensible, and I refuse to have anything to do with his literary works as a consequence.

Tolkien was innocently racist, in an ignorant, not meaning badly way. You have to re-examine his works to attribute racist undertones to them. He certainly never went on record (as far as I know) with racism, and was vehemently opposed to Hitler and white nationalism in real life (unlike Lovecraft).

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Thank you, I kept looking in the DMG or MM for something about this, it never occurred to me to look in the PHB. What an odd place for it.

I will say this, though. That doesn't necessarily mean that anything other than the "creature type" as such would change if a succubus changed alignment. I'd have preferred if they left the change of creature type up to DMs, but at least they are silent on whether a Chaotic Good Succubus becomes an angel or some such, or is simply a medium celestial/fey/whatever, succubus, Chaotic Good.

My impression of the default model for outsiders is that they are all, essentially, the same thing: a "species" constituted of ideas rather than matter and correspondingly mutable. Even setting aside alignment changes, demons and devils and modrons and the like are always transforming as they climb the ranks in their own planar environments. So I suspect a succubus would change her form and powers under this model. Mind control and soul-sucking don't match up with her new ideals, so away they go.

Would that it were so simple for redeemed monsters of the material plane...

 

[Flamestrike]

That is the best argument for removing alignment from D&D. If the terms are subjective and meaningless, they have no use in the game.

You can say that about any word in the english language though.

Good (in DnD) has implicitly or expressly been about charity, mercy, compassion and altruism.

Evil has implicitly or expressly involved harming others (slavery, torture, murder, rape etc).

You can see this in early edition Paladins having rules forcing them into charity, early discussions of alignment in many editions of the game, sourcebooks like the BoVD or BoED, examination of the actions of creatures depicted as 'usually evil' and creatures depicted as 'usually good' and so forth.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My impression of the default model for outsiders is that they are all, essentially, the same thing: a "species" constituted of ideas rather than matter and correspondingly mutable. Even setting aside alignment changes, demons and devils and modrons and the like are always transforming as they climb the ranks in their own planar environments. So I suspect a succubus would change her form and powers under this model. Mind control and soul-sucking don't match up with her new ideals, so away they go.

Yeah, probably, but luckily it isn't explicit, so I can easily shut down table argument about if I go another way.

But, more likely is that I throw out the entirety of the planar cosmology of DND because I largely view it as utter garbage from top to bottom, with only the material, etherial, and shadowfel/feywild as exceptions.

 

[Flamestrike]

Yeah, probably, but luckily it isn't explicit, so I can easily shut down table argument about if I go another way.

But, more likely is that I throw out the entirety of the planar cosmology of DND because I largely view it as utter garbage from top to bottom, with only the material, etherial, and shadowfel/feywild as exceptions.

Ive used it with outsiders able to change alignment (rare as it may be) since AD&D.

CG Titans had an entire subfaction canonically canonicaly change alignment to NE (and had a war, leading to Hades or Ghenna? being a wasteland). Ditto Erinyes and other fallen Angels. Grazzt was once a demon. In 3.5 there was a redeemed Succubus as canon as well.

It's extremely rare, but it does happen. When it does, they outsiders type tends to change as well (Angels become Fiends etc).

Nothing has changed. I really dont get why people are getting worked up over this.

 

[Remathilis]

He's a product of many things. He had quite strong religious beliefs as well that would have coloured his moral reasoning as well (rightly or wrongly).

Lovecraft was a flat out White supremacist, antisemite, bigot, admirer of Hitler, and racist in the extreme:

We Can’t Ignore H.P. Lovecraft’s White Supremacy

He is utterly indefensible, and I refuse to have anything to do with his literary works as a consequence.

Tolkien was innocently racist, in an ignorant, not meaning badly way. You have to re-examine his works to attribute racist undertones to them. He certainly never went on record (as far as I know) with racism, and was vehemently opposed to Hitler and white nationalism in real life (unlike Lovecraft).

My point wasn't to draw a direct comparison between the three of them or their beliefs, merely to point out the things that they said and believed were not the same things that are acceptable now. They produced popular works that have exceedingly difficult conceptual gaps to fill. Be it in innocent ignorance or intentional malice, the works they produced are now colored by the artist. It's a dangerous gray-zone where the beliefs of the artist supersede the art itself, with the potential for as much harm as good if not carefully monitored. i guess there is some value in Death of the Author...

 

[Flamestrike]

My point wasn't to draw a direct comparison between the three of them or their beliefs, merely to point out the things that they said and believed were not the same things that are acceptable now.

Fair enough. I just wanted to clarify that I cant lump Lovecraft in with Tokien when it comes to simply 'being a product of their time'.

Lovecraft was an extreme racist, antisemite and bigot, even for his time.

 

[Oofta]

That is the best argument for removing alignment from D&D. If the terms are subjective and meaningless, they have no use in the game.

If it has no use for you, ignore it. Simple, no?