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]

I love how people tell others that find alignment useful that they don't know what they're talking about. Since they can twist and nitpick it into things it's not meant to be. That it can't possibly be useful no matter how much the majority of players find it useful at least occasionally.

Because you can tell everybody else what they think and find useful. I find it useful. I think it's consistent enough unless you make it a straight jacket and try to make it something it's not. You haven't shown anything other than your insistence that you are right, no matter what.

Ignore alignment if it doesn't make sense to you. I'm going to continue using it as the general descriptor that I always have. It tells me a little bit about how the monster views the world, what their general disposition is. Just like it says in the MM. It does not dictate every aspect of their behavior nor does every creature with the same alignment think or react exactly the same. I don't know of anyone that expects that.

P.S. Underlying and bolding doesn't change the argument.

Missing the point.

So many times in this thread people have made the claim that alignment by itself tells them X. Then we can show that alignment by itself doesn't show X.

Then we are told that if we look for problems we are missing the fact that alignment works. Because alignment by itself tells them X.

You say that I am twisting or nitpicking, when I am not. We took the Mind Flayer example and showed that lawful does not actually show what they said it showed, because it does not apply to other lawful creatures, the Green Dragon and the Beholder. The information they said alignment (by itself) told them could not have come from the alignment by itself, because that information would then be true for other creatures of that alignment and not true for creatures not of that alignment.

I've been ignoring alignment for years, but since again, the point of the thread is that they are looking to maybe remove alignment, and people were upset because it was so useful for them and told them so much information, I think it is fair to demonstrate that it does not, in fact, do that.


And yes, I know bolding and underlinging don't change an argument. It was meant to show emphasis. Since, this isn't one example, or two examples, bu we are starting to get into the realms of fifteen to twenty examples. And at a certain point, it stops being an oddity or single mistake, and starts becoming a systematic problem.

I haven't read Gygax's letters, or Three Hearts and Three Lions, or Moorcock. I figured out an interpretation of those few lines that works for me and my group. Players who approach that system with an open mind can do this. And players who can't or don't want to can run their games without alignment. Nobody's head explodes with logical contradictions, everybody wins.

My very first time reading alignment in the books, back in 3.5, I tied myself in knots trying to figure out if my character would be lawful or chaotic. Neutral seemed like a cop-out, especially since true neutral in that edition was presented as potentially just being too indecisive to choose.

I did not approach my very first character and very first time reading a DnD rulebook with a closed mind about what alignment meant. I didn't even know it existed until I got to that section. And I was immediately confused trying to navigate it.

So, despite you calling me close-minded, and implying I am wearing blinders about this situation, I did give alignment an open-minded assessment when I first encountered it. And found it lacking.

Manyjaws evocation

Tell me how the spell works.

Thank you for proving my point. I can't.

Without the additional information provided by the spell block I can tell you nothing about this spell except that it is an evocation typed spell.

Just as with alignment, you need further information to be able to begin to properly run such a thing.

 

[Oofta]

Many people find horoscopes useful. They're still arbitrarily made up vague nonsense that only have connection to a person's life by pure luck. The thing is every time people tell some concrete example how alignment tells them something useful, it instantly falls apart under scrutiny, like we saw when we tried to examine whether alignment actually correlates to creatures willingness to cooperate. (Claim was that it does, actual evidence suggest that it doesn't.)

We have two options.

• First option is that some people use alignment because they find it useful. If you don't, don't use it since it has little or not mechanical effect.
• Second option is because some people don't find it useful, get rid of it.

I think the former option is far better, and I really don't understand why anyone has a problem with it. But you do you.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

We have two options.

• First option is that some people use alignment because they find it useful. If you don't, don't use it since it has little or not mechanical effect.
• Second option is because some people don't find it useful, get rid of it.

I think the former option is far better, and I really don't understand why anyone has a problem with it. But you do you.

Clogging games with useless nonsense mechanics is bad game design. And the alignment contributes to the negative stereotypes we want to get rid off.

 

[R_Chance]

Clogging games with useless nonsense mechanics is bad game design. And the alignment contributes to the negative stereotypes we want to get rid off.

I had dropped out of this for obvious reasons (the same arguments being made repetitively by slightly different groups of posters)... but you found something I need to reply to. Congratulations

Getting rid of "nonsense mechanics". Some people find many things in D&D "nonsense". The magic system, classes, subclasses, feats, the combat system, initiative, the game itself, and yes alignment, among other things. I'm not sure how many people find them nonsense, outside of the vocal groups that hate them, and neither do you. You just know that you don't like alignment. Good for you. You also know that others find alignment useful, again we don't really know how many (I find it useful though). Who is the arbiter of "nonsense" then? Actually sounds like a fun job

On to negative stereotypes. Where to start and where to end? Classes and subclasses. I've heard people argue that they are stereotypical and class free or skill based systems are better. Methods of generating ability scores, ability scores themselves, experience points, advancement in classes, you could put together a huge list of things that are "stereotypical" with various (and unknown) levels of agreement and disagreement. So, we need an arbiter of stereotypes too. Another fun title

I have run my own game off and on since 1974. Through many editions. Now, I run my own version of the game, so home brewed it's funny. It's what I want though, and I've never had trouble finding players. I was my own arbiter of nonsense and stereotypes. For my own game (obviously with input over the years from my players). I am not telling you how to run your game. I am not telling WotC how to design their current / next version of the game. I have done my job for my own game. Why don't you?

Put together your ideas, Share them with like minded people. Play your game, and have fun. Don't tell other people how to run theirs and that what they like is "nonsense" and "stereotypical". Having said that, I have made up my mind on those issues. For me. Personally I'm glad I don't design for a wider, and harder to please, audience. I'm content to let WotC do that and pick over their material for new / old / good ideas.

Have a good one, and a good game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

We have two options.

• First option is that some people use alignment because they find it useful. If you don't, don't use it since it has little or not mechanical effect.
• Second option is because some people don't find it useful, get rid of it.

I think the former option is far better, and I really don't understand why anyone has a problem with it. But you do you.

Remember the first part of this thread? The announcement that WoTC might be looking into changing or removing alignment?

It is possible that the game designers are moving away from it, in which case it will be removed. This discussion is mostly about whether or not that would be bad for the game.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I had dropped out of this for obvious reasons (the same arguments being made repetitively by slightly different groups of posters)... but you found something I need to reply to. Congratulations

Getting rid of "nonsense mechanics". Some people find many things in D&D "nonsense". The magic system, classes, subclasses, feats, the combat system, initiative, the game itself, and yes alignment, among other things. I'm not sure how many people find them nonsense, outside of the vocal groups that hate them, and neither do you. You just know that you don't like alignment. Good for you. You also know that others find alignment useful, again we don't really know how many (I find it useful though). Who is the arbiter of "nonsense" then? Actually sounds like a fun job

All those other mechanics at least demonstrably do something, and we can objectively know what. We can rationally discuss their merits. Not even alignment defenders can coherently explain what alignment does, every time they try to explain they contradict themselves.

On to negative stereotypes. Where to start and where to end? Classes and subclasses. I've heard people argue that they are stereotypical and class free or skill based systems are better. Methods of generating ability scores, ability scores themselves, experience points, advancement in classes, you could put together a huge list of things that are "stereotypical" with various (and unknown) levels of agreement and disagreement. So, we need an arbiter of stereotypes too. Another fun title

Yes. But I said 'negative stereotypes,' Some of those sure are stereotypes, but not negative ones.

 

[R_Chance]

All those other mechanics at least demonstrably do something, and we can objectively know what. We can rationally discuss their merits. Not even alignment defenders can coherently explain what alignment does, every time they try to explain they contradict themselves.

I know what alignment does in my game. I know it affects certain spells and items on a less arbitrary level in the game. Alignment tells me about a groups (individuals may differ) attitudes to groups / structure and ethical positions. Orcs, in my game - not sure about the current edition without looking, are Chaotic Evil. The only way they organize is through fear and intimidation. An Orc obeys his superior because if he does not he knows he will be punished or killed. And, the Orc knows his fellow Orcs do not have his back They are worried about themselves, not him. Orcs organize on the tribal level with some leaders building "kingdoms" and launching crusades of conquest. These don't really succeed, but they do succeed in giving Orcs a really bad reputation with their neighbors. These kingdoms are not stable and do not last of course. Weaknesses, or perceived weaknesses, will bring them down. Alignment, and thought, allowed me to deduce that about Orcs in my game and I've pretty much ignored other changes to "cannon" since then.

Alignment, and the changes to it from outside sources and my own, have told me a lot about many groups in my game setting. Too many to go into here, but trust me my Dwarfs are really weird (and lawful).

As for individuals, I track alignment and I have a well established list of things that affect it. I don't penalize players for changes btw, they happen typically for good reason over long periods of time. This tends to affect certain classes due to alignment restraints (not Paladins, I dumped them for "Templars" with various alignment requirement long ago). I did have one Templar kicked out of his NN / NE order for sparing an individuals life whom he should have killed on sight. Excommunication is a thing in some religions. it's given us some really good redemption / fallen arcs over the years.

Yes. But I said 'negative stereotypes,' Some of those sure are stereotypes, but not negative ones.

The classic stereotypes of Barbarians and Witches are somewhat negative, but you can alter that. If you are on the religious right you might find the whole concept of FRPGs to be negative, and I think any of us playing would find that a negative stereotype. The point is the range of opinions on things that are... controversial? Not sure exactly how I want to phrase it really, even the word "controversy" carries a freight of meaning. Which is my point.

Now, if, the gods forbid, I was WotC I would make the game more modular (where have I heard that before ), with established ways of altering it for different tables. Which would make it more difficult to design adventures if you did too much of that. Which is a good reason to leave it the way it is and let the work of customization for different groups remain with the DMs in the trenches.

My 2cp, ymmv.

 

[Lanefan]

This. Saying that they are "Lawful Neutral" or whatever often made things more confusing since no one can agree on what the alignment terms specifically mean, anyway.

It meant that each DM could take that and apply it in a manner consistent with her own table.

What another DM does with it at another table is rather irrelevant unless there's an overlap of players or PCs or setting between those games.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

My very first time reading alignment in the books, back in 3.5, I tied myself in knots trying to figure out if my character would be lawful or chaotic. Neutral seemed like a cop-out, especially since true neutral in that edition was presented as potentially just being too indecisive to choose.

Well, what you're describing certainly sounds like indecision to me.

So, despite you calling me close-minded, and implying I am wearing blinders about this situation, I did give alignment an open-minded assessment when I first encountered it. And found it lacking.

Okay. Cool. You don't have to like it. Does that mean nobody else should? That's where the blinders come in: not in deciding you don't like something, but in arguing, over the course of a sixty-page thread without any success, that other people should stop liking this thing because you don't.

Thank you for proving my point. I can't.

Without the additional information provided by the spell block I can tell you nothing about this spell except that it is an evocation typed spell.

Just as with alignment, you need further information to be able to begin to properly run such a thing.

Absolutely nobody is denying that you need further information besides alignment to run a creature. The question is what follows from it. If the point you're trying to prove we should drop from the game descriptors which do not provide complete information on their own about how to run the thing described, this implies that the schools of magic should also be dropped from the game. Should the schools of magic be dropped from the game? What about damage types? Creature types? Size categories?

 

[Lanefan]

Alseid -Chaotic Neutral

Tell me about them. What are they generally about?

To do this I only need two more things: a physical description, and the type of terrain/environment in which they usually live. Any monster entry in any system is going to provide those.

Failing that, I could make it up from scratch.