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.

 

[Lanefan]

And, I'd want to challenge you that they function as general descriptors. If they did then I could take five Chaotic Evil creatures and their behavior would be relatively similar, right?

Red Dragon
Gnoll
Cloaker
Chasme Demon
Will-O-Wisp

Think about the personality, tactics, goals, ect of these creatures. Are they really similar at all? We've got a Cruel Tyrant, a bloodthirsty pack hunter, a singular ambush predator, a hive servant, and a lure predator.

Those descriptions are far easier to work with and build around than "Chaotic Evil"

The common denominator between those five creatures is that if you, a PC adventurer, happen to meet one it's very likely going to try to kill you and eat you for lunch just because a) it thinks it can and b) it enjoys doing so.

CE seems like fine shorthand for this.

 

[Lanefan]

Probably not how I'd organize it, but I'm curious, not arguing: How is the Law/Chaos axis defined by how you kill them?

Simplistically: Lawfuls plan their attacks and then methodically carry them out. Chaotics swarm to the attack without any planning or co-ordination.

This also follows through to how the spoils are divided afterwards.

 

[prabe]

Simplistically: Lawfuls plan their attacks and then methodically carry them out. Chaotics swarm to the attack without any planning or co-ordination.

This also follows through to how the spoils are divided afterwards.

Right. Tactics makes sense. I was thinking something entirely other (like weapon or maybe target choice or something) and not getting anywhere. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Hussar]

Same here. I may create background/personality and so on if I think an NPC or monster is going to be important to the campaign.

But 95% or more of the them? LE or CE is enough and gives me a decent handle on general behavior, trustworthiness and so on. Same way that I don't want factions - because my factions aren't going to be the same factions as anyone else's game.

Your interpretations of good and evil aren't going to be the same as anyone else's game either though. There's a shopping list of alignment debates (and paladin debates) stretching back to the first days of the hobby that prove that.

Yes, because I want the game to tell me what if anything happens because the demons (or anyone/anything else) are evil instead of good or lawful or whatever; and thus also need the game to tell me who or what those things apply to.

In short, I welcome there being mechanics around alignment and look for the game to provide them.

You must be rather disappointed with 5e D&D then. Or, rather, D&D in general. Alignment has never told you why something does something. Alignment tells you that something does something and then alignment is applied. In other words, demons don't do bad things because they are evil, they are evil because they do bad things.

Alignment has never described motivation in any edition of the game.

Simplistically: Lawfuls plan their attacks and then methodically carry them out. Chaotics swarm to the attack without any planning or co-ordination.

This also follows through to how the spoils are divided afterwards.

Except that's absolutely not true. There are a whole slew of modules presenting intelligent demons as having long term, far reaching, complicated plans that coordinate all sorts of bits and bobs. It's one of the reasons I really dislike the demon/devil divide. If you have demons like Malcanthet, Demogorgon, and Orcs who are creating intricate plots, how are they any different from devils?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

The common denominator between those five creatures is that if you, a PC adventurer, happen to meet one it's very likely going to try to kill you and eat you for lunch just because a) it thinks it can and b) it enjoys doing so.

CE seems like fine shorthand for this.

There isn't much difference between a Cloaker and a Polar Bear other than their natural tools and how the tricks they use to eat you better.

I'd argue that to be rated good or evil you need to have some sort of motivation besides "Hungry and wants to eat you."

 

[Mercurius]

Various esoteric traditions, going at least back to ancient Greece, view Chaos as being the primordial void from which the Cosmos emerged. Cosmos is "law" in that involves structure and limitation, while Chaos both acts as the primordial undifferentiated soup from which Cosmos arises, as well as the entropic pull towards dissolution.

The key, though, is that they work in tandem; you can't have one without the other. Too much Chaos leads to destruction, while too much Cosmos leads to rigidity and calcification.

I think one way to characterize demons vs. devils, in this framing, is that demons are--or should be--bent solely on destruction; they want to return everything (the Cosmos) to nothingness. Devils, on the other hand, are/should be bent on control. They want to "freeze" everything into a static Cosmos.

I know this isn't how it actually plays out in D&D, but I personally like the idea. In that regard, I would re-make Hell as cold and icy, and the Abyss as hot and fiery.

"Good" wouldn't simply involve selfishness vs selflessness, but the degree to which love is part of the equation. So I'd argue that Good vs. Evil is Love vs. Hate, and Law vs. Chaos is Form vs. Formlessness. Neutrality would be those polarities in balance.

Of course that implies that NG is the "best" alignment, and I think there's some justification to that. LG and CG would be tempermental tendencies, with few true NG people. In this formulation, most people would be either LN or CN, with tendencies towards evil or good.

 

[Maxperson]

See, sometimes though this stuff hurts more than it helps. Take Yugoloths. Man, I hate Yugoloths.

Demons? They want to destroy everything
Devils? They want to rule everything

Yugololths are mercenaries? But they aren't lawful so they won't always follow their contracts, but they will if you pay them enough gold, and they are immortal beings that care about gold because... well they are mercenaries and the really only care about profit, but not in the way Mammon is the Lord of Greed, see, its different because he is Lawful and they aren't?

LOL Yeah. I've never been fond of the whole Yugoloth mercenary thing, so I just dropped that from my game. They're just the flavor of evil inhabitants of their plane, like Devils get Hell and Demons get the Abyss.

And Banderhobs are equally weird come to think of it. Aren't they Neutral Evil? But their entire schtick is that they are dark servants, in fact it even says "A banderhob fulfills its duties until its existence ends." All they do is follow orders. That sounds.... lawful to me?

I have no idea. I just picked an obscure creature that even I don't know off the top of my head, and I've been playing the game since 1983. If I had to run one, though, I'd probably go with their alignment, rather than read all of the flavor text.

I mean, "an evil servant formed from shadows and flesh to carry out it's masters orders" tells me a lot more about who this thing works than "Neutral Evil". Same with an Aboleths "Psychic Fish worshipped as a God" tells me a whole lot about this thing and how it works than looking at "Lawful Evil"

It doesn't have to be one or the other, though. Using the two in combination can be better than using one or the other.

 

[Maxperson]

There isn't much difference between a Cloaker and a Polar Bear other than their natural tools and how the tricks they use to eat you better.

I'd argue that to be rated good or evil you need to have some sort of motivation besides "Hungry and wants to eat you."

The difference there is pretty large in that, 1) the polar bear if full and not threatened is unlikely to try and kill you anyway, the 5 CE creatures are, and 2) the 5 CE creatures are going to take glee in killing you and seeing you suffer, the bear won't give a fig. It's just hungry.

 

[Remathilis]

And, I'd want to challenge you that they function as general descriptors. If they did then I could take five Chaotic Evil creatures and their behavior would be relatively similar, right?

Red Dragon
Gnoll
Cloaker
Chasme Demon
Will-O-Wisp

Simple. All of the are sadists. Chaotic Evil is the alignment of sadists and sociopaths, serial killers and others who lack any capacity for love beyond themselves. They enjoy tormenting there prey, controlling them with fear, deception or violence. They are without mercy and will not give quarter unless it suits them. They are untrustworthy and will not hold to any bargain unless by force. Most importantly, they know what they are doing is bad and they enjoy it more because of it. They have no higher calling than their own selfish needs and wants. And all will abandon everything to save thier own skin. Nothing holds value beyond themselves and everyone and everything is a pawn to sacrifice for the goal of furthering themselves.

I keep the following quotes handy when playing a CE creature.

Doctor Loomis: I met him, fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left. No reason, no conscience, no understanding; even the most rudimentary sense of life or death, good or evil, right or wrong. I met this six-year-old child, with this blank, pale, emotionless face and, the blackest eyes... the devil's eyes. I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply... evil.
...
These eyes will deceive you. They will destroy you. They will take from you, your innocence... your pride... and eventually your soul. These eyes do not see what you and I see. Behind these eyes, one finds only blackness. They absence of light. These are the eyes of a psychopath.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Demons care because they actively want to tear down the order of the multiverse. If the devils didn't exist, they'd still be trying to do that. Yugoloths would not and are not.

I don't know enough about spirit naga lore to comment on them specifically. But it's no surprise that a material creature wouldn't have an opinion on an extraplanar conflict. Alignment isn't just a descriptor of whose flag you wave at the Great Wheel Olympics. What the chaotic evil descriptor tells me about spirit naga is not that they're Team Demon. It tells me that they act in ways which tend to increase the level of chaos around them; they resent rules and order and resist their imposition; and, accordingly, they are prone to conflict with whatever lawful evil neighbors they may have. If they are brought into alliance or submission with some greater power, they are likely to be unpredictable and possibly disloyal.

A few things to unpack here.

Demon's care about the Blood War because they are in it, That's the point. If they weren't in the Blood War, they wouldn't care about it either.

Yugoloths, well, they don't seem to care about much of anything beyond making gold, which again makes no sense, because what are they even using it for? And the association with Greed is a Devil schtick.

I do find you said something very interesting though "I don't know enough about spirit naga lore to comment on them specifically". Which is part of my point, because guess what? They are kind of lawful.

Spirit Nagas dwell in dismal ruins, plotting vengeance against those that have wronged them. They are brutal tyrants who rule with absolute authority over those in their domain, controlling them via magic. They are also (as are all nagas in 5e it seems) seeking to reclaim lost knowledge and relics that they see as rightfully theirs. So, they rule, control, study arcane knowledge and seek the return of things they feel belong to them because they were left by their creators.

So, they aren't increasing chaos around them, they are imposing law, they may resent other people's laws, but so do Devils.

And unpredicatable and disloyal could be used to describe a devil too. They are the epitome of the "letter of the law" style of backstabbing and treachery. Backstabbing and Treachery being about as "disloyal" as you can get.


But, this is the point I was trying to get at. You took a creature you knew nothing about, looked at the alignment, and came to the wrong conclusion about what that creature would be like. So, if it is leading to the wrong conclusion (That is Banderhob, and Spirit Naga so far, possibly Yuan-Ti and Yugololth too) it is not a useful tool.

"Yugoloths are apathetic" != "All neutral evil creatures are apathetic". That said, apathy does happen to be very much a part of the yuan-ti's schtick as well.

Really? They run secret empires, cults and spies trying to return the rule under their reign, how is any of that apathetic? They have to be pretty active to have all those cults everywhere after all.

The common denominator between those five creatures is that if you, a PC adventurer, happen to meet one it's very likely going to try to kill you and eat you for lunch just because a) it thinks it can and b) it enjoys doing so.

CE seems like fine shorthand for this.

Really? I think a Red Dragon would be likely to look for an investment before just eating you. They are very intelligent beings after all, and Adventurers can be useful.

LOL Yeah. I've never been fond of the whole Yugoloth mercenary thing, so I just dropped that from my game. They're just the flavor of evil inhabitants of their plane, like Devils get Hell and Demons get the Abyss.

I have no idea. I just picked an obscure creature that even I don't know off the top of my head, and I've been playing the game since 1983. If I had to run one, though, I'd probably go with their alignment, rather than read all of the flavor text.

It doesn't have to be one or the other, though. Using the two in combination can be better than using one or the other.

Sure, tandem can work, but we keep seeing that, well, the alignments and the lore seem to be in conflict almost as often as they are aligned, making it really treacherous to play them "accurately" without knowing the lore

Simple. All of the are sadists. Chaotic Evil is the alignment of sadists and sociopaths, serial killers and others who lack any capacity for love beyond themselves. They enjoy tormenting there prey, controlling them with fear, deception or violence. They are without mercy and will not give quarter unless it suits them. They are untrustworthy and will not hold to any bargain unless by force. Most importantly, they know what they are doing is bad and they enjoy it more because of it. They have no higher calling than their own selfish needs and wants. And all will abandon everything to save thier own skin. Nothing holds value beyond themselves and everyone and everything is a pawn to sacrifice for the goal of furthering themselves.

I keep the following quotes handy when playing a CE creature.

Doctor Loomis: I met him, fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left. No reason, no conscience, no understanding; even the most rudimentary sense of life or death, good or evil, right or wrong. I met this six-year-old child, with this blank, pale, emotionless face and, the blackest eyes... the devil's eyes. I spent eight years trying to reach him, and then another seven trying to keep him locked up because I realized what was living behind that boy's eyes was purely and simply... evil.
...
These eyes will deceive you. They will destroy you. They will take from you, your innocence... your pride... and eventually your soul. These eyes do not see what you and I see. Behind these eyes, one finds only blackness. They absence of light. These are the eyes of a psychopath.

So, how does that work in opposition to neutral evil creatures, like Hags, Succubi, Drow, Blights.

In fact, Hags are a perfect example. They are untrustworthy they enjoy tormenting their prey and do so with glee, in fact taking something beautiful good and turning it ugly and evil is their greatest pleasure. They have no higher calling than their own desires, will abandon everything to live to fight another day and sacrifice anything to that end.

Neutral Evil. But, that fits your description of Chaotic Evil