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.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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?

There's a pretty big difference between different interpretations of the general concepts of good and evil versus literally not having organizations called "The Harpers" and "The Zhentarim" in your campaign.

 

[R_Chance]

Yeah, I've wanted it out and taken it out for years. It offers me nothing of value. Especially on the Law and Chaos axis.

So, alignment offers you nothing of value... Chaotic eh?

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"

Let's see... they are all about their own power, they enjoy inflicting pain / death, and their level of social organization is on the individual level unless something with superior power forces them to work for them. Yep, nothing chaotic or evil there you say. Well, I'd say chaotic and evil. Their tactics are dominated by their abilities. What they can do. I would argue their behavior is appropriate to their alignment as constrained by their abilities. You're descriptors are good btw, except the Chasme as a "hive servant". I know they are insectile but I don't recall them being like social insects... but maybe I'm missing something. That happens, I've been playing D&D since the mid 70s and sometimes my ideas are out of date with the latest version. Anyway, I think your short tag type descriptions supplement the alignment rather than replace it

Considering I've had issues with alignment for over a decade, I don't think it is "a few problematic descriptions". Those were just examples on how the system fails, using the example given.

Everybody has issues with alignment at one time or the other. Whether it's the idea of an over arching definition of certain aspects of behavior or the placement in that system of certain monsters, races, spells, etc. I just go with what I think is right.

You seem to be trying to be making a point, but I can't parse it.

Yugoloths don't care about mortals. At all. They care about getting paid. They are immortals that want to amass wealth, for seemingly no reason. They don't tempt mortals, they don't care about souls or worship, they just are violent, cruel and greedy.

But, Mammon's defining trait is his greed. He weaponizes greed, he spreads greed, he uses his greed to play off the greed of others.

Yugoloths could be true neutral and the only difference would be they would be a little less malicious. They are tepid water. And, evil for the sake of evil sounds like Chaos to me. I do it because it feels good, or I do it because I want to would be standards of chaotic evil, but that is all the Yugoloths are, yet they are neutral evil?

I was. Greed is a tool for Mammon to ensnare humans and increase his power. He flaunts greed / wealth / power to attract the people he wants to damn, the souls he wants to ensnare. In the case of Yugoloths, greed is not a tool, it's what they are. They want "more", and more, etc. I would say greed is the factor that has damned them (as a race). Mammon's evil is organized, the Yugoloths is selfish. That was my point.

Which was kind of my point. They don't fit their alignment, so using them as an example of why alignment is helpful is a bad example.
[/QUOTE}

And, I've laid out why I think it works.

So, I think there was something I thought was obvious, that you are missing. Grab an MM. Open it to the Aboleth page, not the statblock, the entire other page on the back. The eight paragraphs of lore and description.

Keep that. Go to the statblock, white out the two words "Lawful Evil".

That's it. I have eight paragraphs telling me how they act, what they want, what it known. I have abilities and effects that tell me so much. Those two words? I don't need them. Nothing they tell me is more evocative or easier to work with than what I have from other sources.

The length of a bloated statblock / description is not the best argument against brevity and categorization. You could probably summarize it in far less than 8 paragraphs. And, accurately. Sometimes there is a lot of information in these things, sometimes someone just felt the need to go on. At length. The longer the text, the more the description is blocking in the creature. I prefer to develop information for my own game, not be spoon fed what every player can read. Sorry, that's just a personal rant. Some people like the extended descriptions and that's OK.

And that is ignoring the same issue I brought up above, which is that you can have a wide pool of creatures that share alignment, and they don't really act that alike. Neutral Evil by itself doesn't tell you enough, and the only reason Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil do is because you can compare them to the most famous icons of those alignments. Is the creature more like a Devil or more like a Demon,

And even that isn't too helpful, since a Kyton is different than an Erynes is different than an Amnizu, so even within devils there is a vast gulf of difference.

As I stated above their actions are governed by their abilities. No amount of wishful thinking is going to give a Gnoll the breath weapon of a Red Dragon. So, it's actions are different. In any event, does every artist have the same desires? Every politician? Differences are a thing too.

Demons don't care either. I mean, they care about who wins because they are one of the two sides fighting, but I don't think that say, Spirit Naga (Chaotic Evil) really care who wins the blood war either.

But, I'm sure that evil apathy doesn't describe a Yuan-Ti, they care very much about winning and controlling the world. They are also Neutral Evil, not Lawful.

So, again, I don't think these two word descriptions are really adding anything useful. Neutral Evil isn't the evil of Apathy, and Chaotic Evil isn't rooting for each other to win.

I think CE beings care about how things affect them. LE is more about the team. Not that there aren't multiple LE teams As for NE, that's always been harder to define. Maybe more selfish, but a bit of a team player? I think of the L-N-C axis as being about social organization with "N" being more indifferent to it as long as what is benefits them.

Thanks for the mental workout btw. I doubt we will reach agreement other than to disagree but it's good to trot out the arguments, dust them off, and give them a go

 

[Remathilis]

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

I tend to view Neutral Evil as transactional evil. Evil as the price of attaining some other goal. A Neutral Evil character may not necessarily WANT to cause Evil, but they will do so with almost no qualms if it means accomplishing thier goal in the most efficient manner possible. Theft, treachery, seduction, or murder are just tools to accomplish their goals. If there is a way to accomplish thier goals without them, they may try, but they don't feel any hesitation for using them if they are the least bit warranted.

And half-the hags in D&D (annis, bheur sea) are CE anway, so I'd be more inclined to argue the rest are closer to CE than NE anyway. But it wouldn't be the first creature in D&D mis-aligned (LE orcs... yeah)

 

[Hussar]

There's a pretty big difference between different interpretations of the general concepts of good and evil versus literally not having organizations called "The Harpers" and "The Zhentarim" in your campaign.

OTOH, factions (and note, factions don't have to be actual organizations) function just as well and have the added benefit of not being subject to a thousand different interpretations.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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? .

What are five creatures that have never been in my kitchen, Alex?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

The Blood War, like all wars, is being fought because the two sides have strategic goals which are incompatible. In the American Revolution, the Americans wanted one thing and the British wanted another, while the Hessians just wanted to get paid.

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.

Greed is a big enough concept to exist in all the factions of fiends. And the yugoloths accept payment in many different forms -- gold is just one form of currency.

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.

See again what I said about spotting an apparent inconsistency and asking yourself if there's some reason it might only appear to be an inconsistency because you don't understand something.

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.

You're seeing "tyranny" and equating that with lawful evil. Not entirely your fault, the term does come up a lot in explanations of LE. But tyrants can definitely be chaotic. Their reigns can be capricious and destabilizing, leading their domains and surrounding regions into chaos and turmoil. See: every orc warlord ever.

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.

A devil's treachery will serve to advance it within the organization, ultimately strengthening the organization because a superior plotter and schemer is in charge. A chaotic evil creature's treachery is aimed at blowing the organization up. It's the difference between that coworker of yours who will throw anyone under the bus for a promotion, and that other coworker who will sabotage the project just for the lulz.

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.

What did I say that's wrong?

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.

Yugoloths are pretty active too. "Apathetic" does not mean "lazy". Please stop interpreting words and concepts in this hostile fashion. Ultimately it only weakens your case, because it means you're taking swings at straw men. Don't look for superficial contradictions; look for deeper understanding of why things aren't contradictions.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

OTOH, factions (and note, factions don't have to be actual organizations) function just as well and have the added benefit of not being subject to a thousand different interpretations.

Can you give an example of a faction that isn't an actual organization and is campaign-world-agnostic? And can you explain how different DMs won't interpret it any differently?

 

[Hussar]

/snip

You're seeing "tyranny" and equating that with lawful evil. Not entirely your fault, the term does come up a lot in explanations of LE. But tyrants can definitely be chaotic. Their reigns can be capricious and destabilizing, leading their domains and surrounding regions into chaos and turmoil. See: every orc warlord ever.
/snip

Do you mean the CE orcs or the LE orcs?

 

[Hussar]

Can you give an example of a faction that isn't an actual organization and is campaign-world-agnostic? And can you explain how different DMs won't interpret it any differently?

Well, if we simply boil things down to descriptors, that works. So, Xenophobic Isolationists, for example, is a group that is campaign world agnostic. And, there's not a lot of interpretational difference going on there. Authoritarian Spiritualists have a highly organized society that revolves around some sort of faith or religion. Two or three word descriptors can function as factions quite easily. Then again, like I said in another thread, I've been playing a LOT of Stellaris, so, I see this sort of thing all the time.

 

[Maxperson]

OTOH, factions (and note, factions don't have to be actual organizations) function just as well and have the added benefit of not being subject to a thousand different interpretations.

Sure they do. Ask 20 people what the Harpers would do in situation X and you'll get multiple different answers.