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.

 

[Magister Ludorum]

Only the lycanthrope has forced alignment due to the curse, and only when forced to change. The character retains their own alignment. When the creature takes over, it has the alignment in the book (usually evil). That's why they often target the family and friends of their host. They're being evil.

That's drawn from lycanthrope lore rather than the letter of the rules, but it's how I've always run it.

Natural weres would be in control and keep their alignment.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That was a point I wasn't clear on. So thanks for that.

But at the same time, how can D&D have a rule like that and still maintain that there are no alignment mandates in D&D? If lycanthropy changes the alignment of the person who contracts it, that's an alignment mandate. If it doesn't, lycanthropy is not a curse.

Hopefully I am starting to make sense.

Not so much, sorry.

There are exceptions. It’s...kinda that simple.

But the idea that without an alignment mandate lycanthropy isn’t a curse...doesn’t make sense to me?

 

[Azzy]

Morality can't subjetive.

The problem with the idea of moral absolutism is that not person, culture, civilization throughout history can agree on the precepts of what the absolite is. There are no precepts that are completely universal and written in stone (so to speak). Sure, there's some basic overlap on ideals, but there is no quantifiable list that we can look at and all agree upon—especially once you start getting into details. Moral absolutism has been used to justify a lot of nasy things in history. The people that practice honor killing think that their morals are the absolute, while those who practiced chattle slavery professed that their morals were absolute, and I'm sure that the nazis, those who bomb abortion clinics, those that opposed civil rights, etc. were all assured that their ideal of morality was absolute. This self-assured sense that what you believe is right and that all others are wrong has led to some terrible things. We all need to be aware that our biases, culture, religion, etc. all shape what our ideals of good and evil are, and that they differ from the past and from person/culture/religion/etc. to the next.

Is there some cosmic ideal of what is good and what is evil that exists beyond human definition? If there is, it hasn't been shown to us, otherwise there would be a universal agreement and we would certainly have less conflict between people with ideas of what's wrong and right at the center of things.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course they are. Just like in real life. In D&D, the party goes and kills that goblin tribe. Good aligned PCs. Defined by an assumption (goblins are evil and need to be killed) made by other people who look just like the PCs, and not the goblins.

But to the goblins, who may have done nothing against the humans, would view it very differently. A group of humans invaded and wiped out the village and ransacked anything valuable. So the neighboring tribe took up arms to defend their people and attacked the PCs.

to the PCs, they are good for destroying evil goblins. To the goblins, they are good for destroying evil PCs. Entirely subjective depending on what side you're on and who makes up the rules.

The problem is that D&D as written doesn't care how each race views itself. The cosmos determines what is good and evil and racial perspective be damned. You aren't going to get evil people winding up in the Seven Heavens because they view themselves as good. Nor are you going to see good people wind up in The Nine Hells just because the people they killed viewed themselves as good.

 

[Maxperson]

The problem with the idea of moral absolutism is that not person, culture, civilization throughout history can agree on the precepts of what the absolite is. There are no precepts that are completely universal and written in stone (so to speak). Sure, there's some basic overlap on ideals, but there is no quantifiable list that we can look at and all agree upon—especially once you start getting into details. Moral absolutism has been used to justify a lot of nasy things in history. The people that practice honor killing think that their morals are the absolute, while those who practiced chattle slavery professed that their morals were absolute, and I'm sure that the nazis, those who bomb abortion clinics, those that opposed civil rights, etc. were all assured that their ideal of morality was absolute. This self-assured sense that what you believe is right and that all others are wrong has led to some terrible things. We all need to be aware that our biases, culture, religion, etc. all shape what our ideals of good and evil are, and that they differ from the past and from person/culture/religion/etc. to the next.

Is there some cosmic ideal of what is good and what is evil that exists beyond human definition? If there is, it hasn't been shown to us, otherwise there would be a universal agreement and we would certainly have less conflict between people with ideas of what's wrong and right at the center of things.

Yep. An objective morality has to exist independently of humans. That leads to the problem of those morals popping into existence, probably during the big bang, or being created by some other being(s) such as God and imposed on humanity.

 

[Azzy]

Yep. An objective morality has to exist independently of humans. That leads to the problem of those morals popping into existence, probably during the big bang, or being created by some other being(s) such as God and imposed on humanity.

While I ike the idea of an absolute morality and subconciously believe that my morals are in concert with it, it comes back down to: Where is the immutable morality stored and conveyed? Which diety imposed it? Because the world has lots of different religions and there are many different gods to choose from (and the one or ones that a particular person believes is usually based on the culture they grew up in), and most of these religions and dieties have different teachings... So, what objective measure do we have that can determine that this or that religion, it's particular interpretation, and the moral ideology of that interpretation, etc. is the correct one?

Edit: I misunderstood your point. Sorry.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

The problem is that D&D as written doesn't care how each race views itself. The cosmos determines what is good and evil and racial perspective be damned. You aren't going to get evil people winding up in the Seven Heavens because they view themselves as good. Nor are you going to see good people wind up in The Nine Hells just because the people they killed viewed themselves as good.

Again. Until the core books specifically outline what is defined as Good and what is Evil, D&D morality might as well be subjective.

You're trying to point to the in-universe cosmology as a justification for arguing objective morality, but as far as I can remember, D&D has never actually done so.

Since RAW doesn't bother to define what Good and Evil actually are, players are left in the dark. What is Good, what is Evil? D&D's lore has never answered that satisfactorily, no matter how insistently they claim to have done so.

At that point, the morality of the world ends up being up to player adjudication, so the idea of D&D morality being objective is a non-starter.

 

[Raduin711]

Not so much, sorry.

There are exceptions. It’s...kinda that simple.

Allrighty then. But Crawford didn't say "Lycanthropy is an exception." He only spoke about the werewolf creature specifically, but not the curse of lycanthropy itself. If we take the idea that 5e does not impose alignment mandates as gospel, then lycanthropy... doesn't... work like that? I am just trying to figure out what the rules are actually saying in the context of his statement.

But the idea that without an alignment mandate lycanthropy isn’t a curse...doesn’t make sense to me?

An inconvenience then. If lycanthropy doesn't change your alignment, then transforming into a wolf once a month isn't much of a curse. I guess just make sure you pack your lint roller?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Again. Until the core books specifically outline what is defined as Good and what is Evil, D&D morality might as well be subjective.

You're trying to point to the in-universe cosmology as a justification for arguing objective morality, but as far as I can remember, D&D has never actually done so.

Since RAW doesn't bother to define what Good and Evil actually are, players are left in the dark. What is Good, what is Evil? D&D's lore has never answered that satisfactorily, no matter how insistently they claim to have done so.

At that point, the morality of the world ends up being up to player adjudication, so the idea of D&D morality being objective is a non-starter.

This argument that "different tables adjudicate this thing differently, therefore the thing is subjective" seems very strange when you start applying it to all the other things that different tables adjudicate differently.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The problem is that D&D as written doesn't care how each race views itself. The cosmos determines what is good and evil and racial perspective be damned. You aren't going to get evil people winding up in the Seven Heavens because they view themselves as good. Nor are you going to see good people wind up in The Nine Hells just because the people they killed viewed themselves as good.

No, the PCs get into the seven heavens because the PLAYERS viewed what they did was good, not D&D RAW. See the list of bad behavior I mentioned in that post you quoted but left off for some reason. A whole lot of bad behavior justified as good by the players for numerous reasons. Ergo, it’s subjective. Plenty of good aligned PCs are still murder hobos and drunken philanderers and those players still consider them good.

If alignment wasn’t subjective, we’d never have table arguments about the acceptable behavior of paladins going back to day 1.