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.

 

[the Jester]

Don't get anywhere near me with that Miracle Whip crap. Too sweet, too vinegary, and you can't cook Sisig with it.

Well- Miracle Whip is not mayonnaise, but it has its uses. Mayo goes well with meat, like lunchmeat or on a burger, while Miracle Whip pairs well with peanut butter.

 

[Raduin711]

So... Werewolves...

The traditional werewolf story, with a person getting infected with lycanthropy, once a month turns into a furry murder machine against their will... how does that work in 5th edition? I apologize I do not have my Monster Manual handy.

 

[the Jester]

Sure 5e did away with Know Alignment, but that's a bug rather than a feature.

Actually, know alignment has been gone since 3e, and it was an intentional omission- I'm pretty sure it was even mentioned as being excised from the game in an early 3e era (or maybe even 3e preview era) issue of Dragon Magazine. So I think it's an intentional choice/feature.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

I've always hated the idea of alignment because are people 1 alignment on every aspect of life? It seems to drift depending on who we are talking with, what we are talking about, and the relationships that we have with that person in how we want to treat them.

And I would argue strongly that that IS True Neutral. It fits it to a tee perfectly: doing whatever seems appropriate to each given situation without any strong predisposition towards any extreme, and typically avoiding conflicts with said extremes unless given no other choice. A large vast majority of people ARE True Neutral.

The problem is in part that no one wants to admit they aren't "good", even those who are evil, and in part that people view the through entirely different lenses based on both their upbringing and arguably what alignment they would naturally lean towards.

To someone strongly lawful good the world seems to be extremes of good or evil and apathy or inaction ARE evil. We call them social justice warriors in modern society.

We don’t call ANYONE a social justice warrior on ENWorld. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

While someone neutral evil will view the world as just about themselves.

People aren't as simple as one alignment mainly because we can actively seek to change ourselves at any point.

 

[dwayne]

I always loved the allegiance system from the d20 modern game as you could have good paladins vs good paladins based off who they were aliened with. But really I never seen the alignment as a issue, just feels like they are making a big deal out of nothing that was ever an issue, same thing for the fantasy races. As if to say look at me we care look at what we are doing, but really folks it is all about the money i do fear, and bowing down to the noisy few who would not know a role play game form a board game. Any way this too will pass much like the name change for the demons and the "D&D is evil and satanic" period back in the day. people will come together with friends and play their game their way and look at all this as just a waste of time and money they could have spent on putting out something else. I for one would have liked an updated greyhawk, darksun or planescape

 

[Panda-s1]

I remember chatting with Andy (Collins) about this around the time 4e was released, when he related the dev team's view that Chaos is inherently evil because it puts the needs of the individual above the community whereas Law is inherently good for prioritizing the community. From that point of view, you can see how it would make perfect sense to delete the "irrational" alignments of CG/CN and LE/LN -- though from the chart Jeremy presented here you can see why so many players would be unhappy about that.

huh, I always thought it was more like CG is gone because NG and CG are roughly the same idea and LG is the outlier for putting law over good, same with NE and LE, CE is less self serving. idk if "law is intrinsically good" is necessarily a good policy.

Roleplaying is not acting. D&D is slowly but surely losing its distinctive characteristics. It is just a kitchen sink now with orc waiters and hobbit black guards.

uh, considering what D&D was originally like compared to now idk what exactly it is we're losing. you can still be an elf in a fantasy world.

but really folks it is all about the money i do fear, and bowing down to the noisy few who would not know a role play game form a board game.

what does this even mean? I'm pretty sure the "noisy few" you speak of have discovered role playing games are something entirely different from board games, thanks.

 

[Lanefan]

And now I remember the last time alignment was a significant issue in a game. Way back when Living City was still a thing, I was running a game at an event and one of the player's was constantly having his paladin detect evil. Every single NPC the group ran into was subjected to a detect evil spell before I finally told him to knock it off.

If that's how the player wanted to play the Pally then have at it.

All it'd take would be someone halfway powerful - and preferably just as Goodly as the Paladin - taking offense to being subjected to such a spell and haughtily dressing the Pally down in public (or even reporting him to the authorities for suspicious use of spells!) and the issue would subside...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I remember chatting with Andy (Collins) about this around the time 4e was released, when he related the dev team's view that Chaos is inherently evil because it puts the needs of the individual above the community whereas Law is inherently good for prioritizing the community. From that point of view, you can see how it would make perfect sense to delete the "irrational" alignments of CG/CN and LE/LN -- though from the chart Jeremy presented here you can see why so many players would be unhappy about that.

Of course, if you believe Michael Moorcock’s work as being where GG lifted the underpinnings of alignment from, you realize that Law = Good and Chaos = Evil is simply untrue. I forget which book(s) or story in the Eternal Champion cycle talked about it, but the ultimate expression of pure Law as complete unchanging stasis and stagnation. It’s like being frozen in amber.

Chaos- in moderation- allows life to happen because it allows change to happen. Go too far in that direction, though, and there is no continuity, not even for an instant. Law- in moderation- allows life to happen because it allows stability to happen.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I always loved the allegiance system from the d20 modern game as you could have good paladins vs good paladins based off who they were aliened with.

That predates D20 Modern. There were articles in Dragon Magazine’s TSR days discussing Paladins at deadly odds with each other.

 

[NaturalZero]

The problem is in part that no one wants to admit they aren't "good", even those who are evil, and in part that people view the through entirely different lenses based on both their upbringing and arguably what alignment they would naturally lean towards.

Not to divert from the topic too much but this makes me think of all of the discussion recently over the Last of Us games. Without spoiling anything, pretty much every main character in the game has contexts where they're warm, loving, passionate humans with families, friends, and community. Each main character is also a brutal murder who has shot, stabbed and killed people who may or may not be innocent. From everyone's perspective, they're the good guy or a victim, and from everyone else's perspective, they're monsters.