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.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Why not? Fantasy fiction has monsters, and a lot of monsters look, well, like monsters.

Because it's lazy and there are better ways to do it?

Because all this discussion started because in real life people are harmed by this stereotype?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I like your orcs.

I also think you brought up a great point - if orcs are playable maybe we shouldn’t treat them as all evil.

Exactly - I think one of error of WotC on this was to stand between two chairs: have the ''monster orc'' and the ''playable WoW orcs''. One of them requires a monster statblock in the Monster Manual, the other an race entry in the PHB that I can add to NPC statblocks, like I do for elves and dwarves.

 

[Fenris-77]

Because it's lazy and there are better ways to do it?

Because all this discussion started because in real life people are harmed by this stereotype?

What stereotype are you actually talking about here? Real people don't look like monsters, nor do they look evil. They might look different, but that's a separate thing. You are talking about monsters right? Not conflating that with intelligent humanoids, an issue that's been beaten half to death here in the last weeks. So, assuming you do mean monsters, perhaps you could elaborate how my ugly evil Manticore is a stereotype or trope that harms people?

Monsters have been a part of human storytelling as long as we have records for it. It's not lazy to use monsters in fantasy fiction at all. You'd need to actually demonstrate how it's lazy, and how it harms people, not just toss those ideas off as given.

 

[Panda-s1]

What stereotype are you actually talking about here? Real people don't look like monsters, nor do they look evil. They might look different, but that's a separate thing. You are talking about monsters right? Not conflating that with intelligent humanoids, an issue that's been beaten half to death here in the last weeks. So, assuming you do mean monsters, perhaps you could elaborate how my ugly evil Manticore is a stereotype or trope that harms people?

idk why are green skin and horns reason enough to call someone a monster?

 

[Oofta]

idk why are green skin and horns reason enough to call someone a monster?

Answering a simple question with a question?

What if instead of green skin it was a beholder?

 

[BookTenTiger]

What stereotype are you actually talking about here? Real people don't look like monsters, nor do they look evil. They might look different, but that's a separate thing. You are talking about monsters right? Not conflating that with intelligent humanoids, an issue that's been beaten half to death here in the last weeks. So, assuming you do mean monsters, perhaps you could elaborate how my ugly evil Manticore is a stereotype or trope that harms people?

Monsters have been a part of human storytelling as long as we have records for it. It's not lazy to use monsters in fantasy fiction at all. You'd need to actually demonstrate how it's lazy, and how it harms people, not just toss those ideas off as given.

The stereotype you originally quoted me on was in a reply to @Oofta , and was based around the trope of easily identifying bad guys.

I was arguing that there are better ways to identify antagonists in D&D than by appearance alone. For example: actions, lore, history, intention, conflicting goals, etc.

I did not say anything against having monsters in the game. I love monsters!

However, embedded in D&D is the idea that if I see an orc in a dungeon room, I can immediately justify killing it.

Traditionally, this has been true because D&D settings have declared all orcs to be evil.

I would argue that this is a lazy and harmful stereotype. Real people judging others based on their appearance has led to real harm and tragedy for all of human history, and obviously it's part of a lot of important discussions right now.

My argument is that when Wizards of the Coast has monstrous humanoids in upcoming adventures, settings, and editions, come up with other ways to show that the monstrous humanoids are antagonistic rather than just relying on the lazy, harmful trope that "everyone who looks like ____ is evil."

Just because it's tradition doesn't mean it's good.

If you disagree with this, then I challenge you to demonstrate how losing the trope of "everyone who looks like ___ is evil" harms the game or the experience of playing the game one bit.

 

[Panda-s1]

Answering a simple question with a question?

What if instead of green skin it was a beholder?

...do you maybe see the issue with comparing "humanoid with green skin and horns" to a beholder?

 

[BookTenTiger]

Answering a simple question with a question?

What if instead of green skin it was a beholder?

I think part of the conflict here is play style. If I have read your posts correctly, you favor a play style in which the characters go out, find monsters, and kill them. For example, the characters see a beholder, fight the beholder, and move on. And there's nothing wrong with playing that way.

But many of us are arguing that when WotC publishes adventures, settings, and so on, they should be cautious on how they use this style when humanoids or monstrous humanoids are the foes. WotC should have more interesting justifications for why humanoids and monstrous humanoids are enemies rather than "they look different."

You yourself have provided many great examples of cool lore surrounding why orcs, for example, could be antagonists in a game.

And again, this is not about what individual groups do at their table. It's about what Wizards of the Coast chooses to publish.

 

[Oofta]

...do you maybe see the issue with comparing "humanoid with green skin and horns" to a beholder?

I see an issue with it being okay for a beholder to be evil but not a creature that happens to be vaguely human shaped.

 

[Panda-s1]

I see an issue with it being okay for a beholder to be evil but not a creature that happens to be vaguely human shaped.

great! no one said the "humanoid with green skin and horns" can't be evil, glad we agree then.