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...

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.

align.png

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

We can replace alignement by something like : usual behavior
and use term like, kind, cooperative, agressive, ruthless, vicious, cautious, oppressive, blood thirst,
it would be more useful to dm and players.
Alignment can be a very restraining to define a character. The lawful evil of Asmodeus is not the same as the one of a low Cr devil, or a basic street thug.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Oofta

Legend
Who would have guessed that just ignoring mechanical problems exist, invoking nostalgia to paper over systemic issues, and foisting all the hard choices onto the individual DM's would be a poor strategy in the long run?

They threw the 4e baby out with the bathwater. That's their choice, but they didn't have anything to replace it with except nostalgia. 'Rulings not rules' was just the cop out that allowed them to not have to address the real problems at all. Now that's coming back to bite them.

Hey now! Just because some people like manual transmissions (it's a great anti-millenial theft device) doesn't mean we still don't want that feel of interaction ... umm ... wait.

Were you talking about alignment? Never mind. :blush:
 


Oofta

Legend
We can replace alignement by something like : usual behavior
and use term like, kind, cooperative, agressive, ruthless, vicious, cautious, oppressive, blood thirst,
it would be more useful to dm and players.

So replace alignment with something that sounds basically a more verbose version of alignment?

I like alignment as a handy descriptor and ignore it when it gets in the way. That's how I've run it for a long time, and it's explicitly stated that way in 5E.
 

Oofta

Legend
Just for fun I found my document that I link to for new players in case they're curious about my attitudes about alignment. It's not required reading for anyone or anything, nor will there be a quiz.

It's kind of long, short version is alignment informs how someone views the world based on a Psychology 101 course from eons ago.


By and large I don't I don't enforce alignment other my no evil PC policy. Alignment is just one more descriptor amongst many that help define a character.

Where I use it is in determining how NPCs and monsters respond, how they see the world. One theory in psychology is that people view the world through schemas, basically predefined templates for how we view the world. You can read about it here. What Role Do Schemas Play in the Learning Process? It even extends to color, apparently if you don't have the word for the color blue you don't distinguish between it and green. There's Evidence Humans Didn't Actually See Blue Until Modern Times

Two people can look at exactly the same situation and form vastly different opinions on what is going on. One person may see a beggar on the street and have empathy for someone down on their luck while another may see someone who is lazy or unwilling to work. Yet another person would see someone that could be abducted and killed and no one would notice.

As another example, a chaotic person may look at how a kingdom is being ruled and see a tyranny where title, not worth determines a person's value. Another may look at the same kingdom and see an organized structure that works for the people by giving them a sense of tradition and a proper place.

There's a lot of leeway in this concept, they are just general guidelines. There may often be conflict - a Chaotic Good character may not like the tight control a king has over his kingdom, but may realize that the option is worse. A Lawful Evil person may work to throw a kingdom into chaos so that in the long term a new regime may rise from the ashes.

In addition, people aren't always 100% consistent. Personal experience may soften the heart of a chaotic evil serial killer for very specific individuals. A lawful good paladin may have a blind spot and not realize the harm they are doing to innocents.

Lawful: views the world as a clockwork mechanism. Everything works according to a grand plan, even if we don't understand that plan. When things are in proper order, the whole system works smoothly. If a title is honorable, the person holding the title should be given the respect the title deserves. In some situations they may decide the person is unworthy of the title.

Chaotic: there is no grand plan. The only organization is that which makes sense for the people involved. If the old order needs to be replaced so that people can be free to pursue their own goals, so be it. Perceived organization comes out of individuals choosing to cooperate for themselves or their community. Individuals should be judged by their worth or power, not by title or station.

Good: this is complex, but essentially it comes down to empathy (the ability to put yourself in someone else's shoes), and not wanting to harm others. This doesn't mean you don't fight or kill, but that you will fight and kill because you need to protect others. You may do things for your own personal gain as long as you are not harming innocents.

Evil: in general evil people view others as objects with no inherent value. They may love someone, but in many cases love them as a possession, something they own. If the object of their affection doesn't reciprocate they may not care. They may kill or cause pain in others simply because they enjoy it. Your personal gain is all that matters, other people's goals do not unless they hold power over you or you can use their goals to manipulate them.
 

So replace alignment with something that sounds basically a more verbose version of alignment?

I like alignment as a handy descriptor and ignore it when it gets in the way. That's how I've run it for a long time, and it's explicitly stated that way in 5E.
yes indeed, It can be kept for reference.
I was just adding this to my post
Alignment can be a very restraining to define a character. The lawful evil of Asmodeus is not the same as the one of a low Cr devil, or a basic street thug.
 


jasper

Rotten DM
So replace alignment with something that sounds basically a more verbose version of alignment?

I like alignment as a handy descriptor and ignore it when it gets in the way. That's how I've run it for a long time, and it's explicitly stated that way in 5E.
on my gawd. Oofta found the real reason. Instead listing alignment, the books will list the usual behavior
and use term like, kind, cooperative, agressive, ruthless, vicious, cautious, oppressive, blood thirst under each monster/race. THIS WILL INCREASE THE PAGE COUNT ON EACH BOOK.
Well not really, WoTc will now have reedit and cut some pages. What pages will be cut from the PHB, MM, and DMG? Wotc is keep that a secret.
 


on my gawd. Oofta found the real reason. Instead listing alignment, the books will list the usual behavior
and use term like, kind, cooperative, agressive, ruthless, vicious, cautious, oppressive, blood thirst under each monster/race. THIS WILL INCREASE THE PAGE COUNT ON EACH BOOK.
Well not really, WoTc will now have reedit and cut some pages. What pages will be cut from the PHB, MM, and DMG? Wotc is keep that a secret.
They have to justified their job!
there is certainly enough useless information to remove to keep the page count even!
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top