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.

 

[Haldrik]

Firstly, I have never once encountered or heard of a benevolent Slaad. They breed by warping and twisting mortal creatures or by laying eggs in them to burst out and kill them. They also keep slave camps for those breeding arrangements according to older lore. Like how the creatures most personifying free-will employ prison breeding camps for murdering people and turning them into slaad

I agree you are right about how the Slaad gets described, and that the official description is in error to make them sound Evil.

Aggressive against Lawful, yes. But Evil, no.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, forgot. Your exact words were "they will be generally prone to acting on their whims, often acting carefree without regard to good or evil."

My interpretation of those words are that they would act like they want (that is the interpretation of where you said they act on their whims, whims being things that they want to do) and they generally won't care about good or evil (that being the interpretation of them acting carefree without regard to good or evil)

Your interpretation completely changes what I said. They are not equivalent statements.

Which, again. Most mortals on the street do what they want to do, acting on their whims and fancies, and most of them do not care overly much about things being good or evil. A greedy blacksmith who cheats his customers isn't thinking "Ah, I would like to create more evil in the world and spread misery" they are thinking about their own gains, and acting for their own desires. They don't really care if the action is good or evil. They are just doing what they want.

No. Most people make decisions about what to do. They don't act on whims most of the time. Maybe acting on a whim to make an impulse buy at the cash register, but generally they will put some thought into what they do.

But, I'm sure you'll find some way to twist this into me being wrong again. Have fun.

No twisting necessary. They failed to be equivalent statements before I ever read your post.

 

[Hussar]

Neither is lawful or chaotic. Alignment deals with the world not the mechanics that underpin it, except for the planes/outsiders and some magic effects which have tangible impacts.

Well, I guess I should have rephrased my answer a bit.

Fortunately, none of those thing appear anywhere in the books. So, we don't have to worry about them. Unfortunately, Lawful and Chaotic and Good and Evil DO appear in the books, people DO describe the exact same thing with opposite descriptors, meaning that in the context of the game, the descriptors are meaningless. They don't actually tell you anything until the person using them defines what he or she means by those terms in a way clearly enough to communicate their views of good and evil and how they are going to interpret them for this game. Which, of course, doesn't help you one whit when you sit down at someone else's table and have to do it all over again.

Yah, no thanks.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Wow, the third time you've compared me to a petulant child. You know, I think I feel a change coming over me, I think that...

Wait, no, this is still puerile and annoying. Just like when you were telling me that my lack of understanding was the problem.

Honestly, if you are this far devolved into personal attacks, would you mind not cluttering up the thread? Just PM me all the insults you'd like to level at me. It will save everyone else from having to read them.

Sorry. That's not meant to be personal, honest -- I just find this philosophically overeducated preschooler character really funny for some reason. I urge you not to dwell too much on the fact that he's a petulant child and instead consider why his line of reasoning doesn't work. How can the mom say "dogs bark" and "sea lions aren't dogs" but still have a functional definition of dogs?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Your interpretation completely changes what I said. They are not equivalent statements.

No. Most people make decisions about what to do. They don't act on whims most of the time. Maybe acting on a whim to make an impulse buy at the cash register, but generally they will put some thought into what they do.

No twisting necessary. They failed to be equivalent statements before I ever read your post.

Ah, I see.

To you "prone to acting on a whim" doesn't mean that they are prone to acting as they like with little thought to consequence. (My interpretation just to make that clear) Instead you seem to want it to mean that they literally never plan anything, that they put no thought into their actions whatsoever.

That's a problem if you want to look at, well, any Demon Lord ever, Formorians, heck, even Slaad. See, they put thought into things, like those slave breeding camps I mentioned.

Sorry. That's not meant to be personal, honest -- I just find this philosophically overeducated preschooler character really funny for some reason. I urge you not to dwell too much on the fact that he's a petulant child and instead consider why his line of reasoning doesn't work. How can the mom say "dogs bark" and "sea lions aren't dogs" but still have a functional definition of dogs?

Thank you for the apology.

As we discussed previously, in the real world, there are objective facts that can be seen, and compared, for both Inductive and Deductive reasoning.

And I think also that your example breaks down because "Dog" is not a category in the same way that "Lawful Evil" is. Yes, dogs are things that bark. But Sea Lions are sea creatures, with flippers and a flat tail. They only have two limbs instead of four. Their ears are much smaller and they are nearly furless. All of those facts move Sea Lions away from "dog"

But, Sea Lions and dogs do share traits, because they are both Mammals and Carnivores. They fit within a larger category that shares traits.

So, your example is very specific and would be closer to defining "what is a minotaur" and not looking at "what makes this massive swath of creatures all share the same designation of {X}". To apply the kind of high level organization here to your example, you'd have to show that Birds and Plants are very similiar. That is the kind of thing we are discussing, not very specific organisms.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, I see.

Given what you write next, it's clear that you don't.

To you "prone to acting on a whim" doesn't mean that they are prone to acting as they like with little thought to consequence. (My interpretation just to make that clear) Instead you seem to want it to mean that they literally never plan anything, that they put no thought into their actions whatsoever.

That's a problem if you want to look at, well, any Demon Lord ever, Formorians, heck, even Slaad. See, they put thought into things, like those slave breeding camps I mentioned.

Er, "prone to" doesn't mean everything ever. Words mean things.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Er, "prone to" doesn't mean everything ever. Words mean things.

Yes, yes they do.

 

[Azzy]

The term "theocratic" seems problematic, possibly even accusatory and hostile against religious cultures.

Some religious traditions seem hierarchical and possibly deserve the term.

But other religious traditions seem egalitarian, and a different term to describe it feels more accurate and more positive.

Some aboriginal traditions vote to decide what their clans do. Some monotheistic traditions emphasize each human is the image of divinity. And so on.

There are many different kinds of ways to be "religious".

The word "theocratic" refers to being related to a theocracy. It provides no value judgement on the religion that the theocracy is based upon and only serves to define that the state/government/institution is based upon religious mandate. The religion, itself, would need to be described in more terms to determine the values of that particular religion. It should also be noted that a theocratic state's interpretation of the religion in question may be wholly at odds with the base teachings of that religion.

 

[Remathilis]

D&D: Alignment Does Almost Nothing

Alignment in D&D is one of the most contentious things about 5th Edition, and it doesn't really do anything in the game. Here's how it works, and doesn't.

www.belloflostsouls.net

The drum beats ever louder...

 

[Aldarc]

I’m okay with drums. If D&D got rid of ability scores in favor of modifiers, as per the article, then I would join that drum circle.