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.

 

[Hussar]

I had a barbarian at one time that was loyal to his friends, never lied, was not particularly unpredictable. If he gave his word, he did his best to keep it.

I had his alignment as CN. He lived by a personal code. He valued personal strength and honesty because lying was a sign of weakness. When he (rarely) gave his word he kept it and he wasn't unpredictable because he wasn't insane. He was loyal to his friends because he wasn't a loner or a sociopath.
But it was his code, and only his. He thought most external rules were pointless and everyone should seek their own path. He didn't care about titles, wasn't particularly motivated to help others unless he got something out of it.

I really don't understand why someone who doesn't believe in external authority is automatically going to have completely random behavior, most mentally stable people do not. Same way that someone who is lawful can be spontaneous as long as it's not breaking any rules they consider applicable.

EDIT: just be clear - I think his alignment was accurate even if it only represented one small piece of who he was.

Well, because the desciption of chaotic in 3e (I don't remember AD&D's) included descriptors like whim, impulsive, and stuff like that. If you have a character that behaves LG 99% of the time, then, well, he's LG, regardless of what's going on in his head. Alignment is determined by what you do, not what you believe. And that's been true since 1e.

 

[Voadam]

Well, because the desciption of chaotic in 3e (I don't remember AD&D's) included descriptors like whim, impulsive, and stuff like that. If you have a character that behaves LG 99% of the time, then, well, he's LG, regardless of what's going on in his head. Alignment is determined by what you do, not what you believe. And that's been true since 1e.

There has always been lots of flexibility in the alignment descriptions.

I played a 3.5 WoW Manual of Monsters Troll who was CN and focused on the individuals versus group aspect in concept.

The concept was I valued and stuck by my individual friends over anything else, whether they were good or evil, I would stick up for them and go along with them and help them, not caring about local authority or society in general.

This focus on individuals over groups fits Chaos descriptions in most edition descriptions.

The code of sticking with them loyally no matter what could also have worked for most definitions of Lawful conceptually.

 

[Oofta]

Sounds like you have it pretty spot on. The character trends to CN but there are some exceptions in there.

I think the CN meaning "chaotic insane" largely comes from the description in 2E. Paraphrasing a bit but it included things like "a CN may switch sides in the middle of the fight just to see what happens."

You know what's going to happen? It's going to be either a PC without a group or a dead PC. What kind of idiot would do that? That's not chaotic, it's insane. It's someone with no concept of cause and effect, with no bonds to anyone else.

Well, because the desciption of chaotic in 3e (I don't remember AD&D's) included descriptors like whim, impulsive, and stuff like that. If you have a character that behaves LG 99% of the time, then, well, he's LG, regardless of what's going on in his head. Alignment is determined by what you do, not what you believe. And that's been true since 1e.

It's just one descriptor, no more or less important than bonds or flaws. The people that seem to have an issue with it seem to want it to be a straight jacket when it is not.

It does not dictate behavior. It's defined in the PHB as: "the moral compass that guides his or her decisions". In the MM: "monster’s alignment provides a clue to its disposition and how it behaves in a roleplaying or combat situation.'

Moral compass that guides? Clue to disposition? By definition it is what's going on in the person's head.

I don't really care what previous editions said. I think 2E had a stupid definition of CN for example. But I'm not playing 2E and most people currently play D&D have never played it.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Well, because the desciption of chaotic in 3e (I don't remember AD&D's) included descriptors like whim, impulsive, and stuff like that. If you have a character that behaves LG 99% of the time, then, well, he's LG, regardless of what's going on in his head. Alignment is determined by what you do, not what you believe. And that's been true since 1e.

It's been a while, but I seem to recall criticisms that the Third Edition descriptions of alignment were generally inferior to what came before and betrayed a lack of knowledge on what those concepts had been established to mean.

EDIT: 4E unfortunately made things worse by sticking Lawful to Good exclusively and Chaotic to Evil exclusively.

 

[Aldarc]

EDIT: 4E unfortunately made things worse by sticking Lawful to Good exclusively and Chaotic to Evil exclusively.

Nah, the 4e alignment system fit the World Axis Mythos (and the real world Chaoskampf motif it drew upon) exceedingly well.

 

[Voadam]

For reference here is what 3.5 said about Law vs. Chaos:

"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

 

[Gradine]

Plus the memes man, the memes! People who don't even play D&D know what a Chaotic Neutral is!

The memes survived 4e, I doubt they'll just disappear overnight

 

[Maxperson]

I'm still rather taken aback the people treat alignment as an important part of the game. It's been stripped of any mechanical impact whatsoever. Alignment has even less impact on the game than backgrounds because at least backgrounds actually have some sort of mechanics attached to it.

Perhaps your problem is in thinking that alignment is about mechanics. It isn't and never has been. Mechanics have been tied to alignment in the past, but those mechanics are not why alignment existed. Strip away the mechanics, and you still have the reasons why alignment existed.......and will continue to exist.

 

[Maxperson]

By and large, there haven't been great flaming row's over room descriptions.

By and large, alignment's "flaming rows" have been about mechanics and not the reasons why alignment exists. Strip away the mechanics and the arguments pretty much dissolve outside of white room alignment discussions like this one.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, because the desciption of chaotic in 3e (I don't remember AD&D's) included descriptors like whim, impulsive, and stuff like that. If you have a character that behaves LG 99% of the time, then, well, he's LG, regardless of what's going on in his head. Alignment is determined by what you do, not what you believe. And that's been true since 1e.

You keep saying that, so it appears that you don't understand that if the character has stuff going on in his head, his actions are going to reflect that stuff. They aren't divorced things. A creature isn't going to love ripping innocent creatures apart in his head, and then help little old ladies across the street and save puppies as his actions.