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.

 

[Azzy]

"Me / you" = Chaotic
"We / you ones" = Lawful

This is a complete tangent and wholly unrelated to any point that Haldrik was making or to alignments in general, but seeing Haldrik's choice to designate the plural "you" just triggered me to go into a flight of fancy as a logophile.

In the English language, there are many informal, usually regional ways to designate the plural you. Aside from Haldrik's choice "you ones", there is also "yous ones", "you guys", "you all", "you lot", and "you mob". Then there are the contractions and otherwise shortened forms. Most notorious is the American Southern "y'all" (contracted from "you all" and sometimes double pluraled as "all y'all"), but some others are "yous" or "youse" (or even "youse guys"), "you-uns" (shortened from "you ones"), "yunz" (contracted from "you-uns"), "yinz" (an variant of "yunz"), "ye" (also "yee", "yees", and "yiz"). There may be others (there always are), but I'm not familiar with them.

So, that was my Ted Talk, now youse guys can go back to debating whether or not alignment should be featured in future editions of D&D.

 

[Chaosmancer]

We take a one line description of alignment. We think about how that might apply to the individual or society that we wish to represent/role play in the game in the circumstances they find it in.

What are these standards you’re talking about?

The alignment inspector isn’t going around checking our interpretation of each alignment is precise enough.

Part of your challenge is that you are trying to be extremely precise about a system that isn’t precise and then claiming it doesn’t work because you’ve found overlaps. Philosophy and ethics are rarely clear cut.

The design team are talking about adding nuanced alignments, not removing it all together. Alignment very much exists in Eberron and Wildemount. It just isnt fixed to race.

I’ve just remembered another very good use of alignment. It gives DMs an insight into why a creature that isn’t lawful or neutral good would still think itself right and moral. No creature thinks it’s the bad guy. Alignment helps explain this.

The opinion that written laws are more lawful than oral traditions
The opinion that nomadic people are more chaotic than people who live in cities
The opinion that traditional honor codes are less lawful than contract writing
the opinion that it is a despot's results that matter for whether they are lawful or chaotic.
The opinion that a polygamous relationship is less lawful than a monagamous one
The opinion that tribal people are less lawful than city people
The opinion that enforcing laws and order is chaotic if it is destablizing in the long-term
The opinion that Neutral evil is "transactional" but Neutral Good isn't
The opinion that how likely they are to betray you is a sign of how chaotic they are (really? A devil is just as likely to betray you, just by the letter of the law)
The opinion that personal codes need to be pre-written for a lawful neutral character

I could keep going from the previous examples of other posters.


And, I'm not trying to be extremely precise, I'm trying to limit the discussion to what rules we have. Because if the system is what people are using to gain information, then I should be able to show that information available just from what we have in the books.

Instead, what I am finding are people making assumptions and claims that they assume are true, but have no basis in the rules. So, if the rules aren't giving us anything useful. If they are so general that everyone can have their own interpretation and they are all right... then what use are they?

Old hands might be fine with NE, knowing exactly what that means for them, but for a new DM? Someone who is reading the monster statblocks? It doesn't seem to provide anything useful for them, and instead seems contradictory and more confusing.

i really can’t see your problem. I see neutral evil and think right... a hag isn’t going to be caught up with individual ideologies. It will work with either side of the bloodwar. It’s going to be interested accumulating personal power transactionally. It’s probably linked to the grey wastes, possibly works with Yugoloths. It’s going to be pure evil... evil I can really have fun with.

I get that from two words. Does it matter if you take other inspirations?

If you don’t find the alignment system a source of inspiration I’m not sure what you want me to say to you. You seem intent on trying to prove/win that it can’t be an inspiration for me and other people.

I'm impressed. I don't see the Blood War, Yugoloths, or Grey Wastes listed under Neutral evil. When I read Neutral Evil it just say they "do whatever they think they can get away with." which could describe.. well, pretty much anything evil.

It really sounds to me like you were inspired by:

Lore about the Blood War
Lore about Yugoloths
Lore about Hags
Lore about the Multiverse

None of which is listed in the alignment section... in fact, pulling inspiration from the lore in the books instead of alignment.... is exactly what I keep saying people will likely do. Funny that.

You have a very broad definition of moral code.

Dexter (serial killer) has a series of moral codes drummed into him by his policeman father to justify and control his behaviour. It’s a mantra that he can articulate. He wants to hurt people but the code stops him. People will follow a moral code even when it’s not expedient.

Some people act because they feel that way about something. I don’t lie, it’s a sign of weakness. I don’t like hurting kids its cruel. I don’t want to be tied down to one person.

People want to act that this way, no code is stopping them doing something they don’t already want to do. You don’t need a code to do things you already plan on doing.

So a moral code only counts, if it prevents you from doing something you would otherwise want to do.

If I am, say, a policeman father, and I say "I won't lie to save my own skin" that isn't a moral code, unless I otherwise would have lied to save my own skin and the code I just imposed on myself prevents it?

Or do moral codes have to be imposed from an external source for them to count?

I mean, if a person is the type to be honest no matter what, does it matter if they have a code imposed to be honest, or if it just that they want to always tell the truth? I don't see what the distinction is, unless you are saying that a code must control behavior that you would otherwise indulge in. Which seems like a rather narrow idea of a code. Especially if held up against, say, an LG Paladin holding an Oath. Those are also Codes, but if the Paladin is simply the type of person to do those things anyways, in your definition they wouldn't count.

No it doesn't. You don't need every detail in order to base your decision on reason. Arbitrary = whim.

If you do not have enough information to make an informed decision, then your decision is essentially random.

If your reason is to try and judge what is more lawful than that what, then you need to have some sort of scale to work from.

That's not what CG means, though.

Right CG is acting arbitrarily according to their whims, with no regard to other's expectations.

 

[Maxperson]

If you do not have enough information to make an informed decision, then your decision is essentially random.

Nobody said anything about "not enough," and who are you to say how much is enough for me?

Right CG is acting arbitrarily according to their whims, with no regard to other's expectations.

That's CN, not CG. CG is not about "whim." It's about acting on your personal and good conscience. Seeing good done for the individuals. Seeing people able to live free and unoppressed. And so on. There's nothing random or whimish about it.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nobody said anything about "not enough," and who are you to say how much is enough for me?

Well, again, when I tried to get any information from you about how you would divide it I got "Who cares. It's a game. We don't need to go into that much detail."

So, currently, you seem to be doing it with no information. And if that is enough, then shrug

That's CN, not CG. CG is not about "whim." It's about acting on your personal and good conscience. Seeing good done for the individuals. Seeing people able to live free and unoppressed. And so on. There's nothing random or whimish about it.

What is your conscience if not your whims? It is what you decide is right and wrong, based off nothing but a feeling. It is your personal inner voice.

 

[Maxperson]

What is your conscience if not your whims? It is what you decide is right and wrong, based off nothing but a feeling. It is your personal inner voice.

Reason. Plain and simple. You don't get to call my reason a whim. Not any be anything other than wrong, anyway.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Asked and Answered. You wanted to know why I was having this discussion, I told you. You then asked me why I was having this discussion. I can keep justifying myself to you, but that seems to be a waste of energy. You don't want to talk about alignment, you don't have to. Personally? I'd rather discuss alignment than my motivations for talking about a ruleset for a fantasy game.

If you refuse to look at where you want the discussion to go, you shouldn't be surprised when it doesn't go anywhere.

Do you remember the question I asked after you explained that a despot is chaotic because the results of their actions were chaotic? Probably not since you never answered it.

I asked if a person who saves the life of an individual, with no prior knowledge of this individual, is Evil if that individual turns out to be a demon or other serial killer.

And that is an interesting question which I could discuss at some length under different circumstances. But like I said, it had become clear to me by that point that answering your claims on the object level was not constructive. Let's be honest: whatever my response, would you have entertained it as a new perspective to perhaps learn something from, or would you have engaged it as an enemy to be beaten?

So, yeah. I'm sorry, but I am unmoved by your complaints that I'm not talking about what you want to talk about. I don't want to talk about all this formal stuff I keep having to call you out on either. But until you get the formal stuff sorted out, we can't -- can't -- have a real conversation.

It seems to me that the people insisting that alignment works very well for them seem to be talking about the alignment system in their heads, not the one in the books, which might explain why they don't seem to understand how it could not work for me.

All alignment systems are in our heads, yours as much as anyone else's. Do think you are in a privileged position to exposit "the one in the books"? Really? Really?

People seem to be trying apply standards that are not part of the system, and then defending the system based on those standards.

Better than trying to apply standards that are not part of the system, and then attacking the system based on those standards. One is charitable interpretation, the other is strawmanning.

 

[TheSword]

The opinion that written laws are more lawful than oral traditions
The opinion that nomadic people are more chaotic than people who live in cities
The opinion that traditional honor codes are less lawful than contract writing
the opinion that it is a despot's results that matter for whether they are lawful or chaotic.
The opinion that a polygamous relationship is less lawful than a monagamous one
The opinion that tribal people are less lawful than city people
The opinion that enforcing laws and order is chaotic if it is destablizing in the long-term
The opinion that Neutral evil is "transactional" but Neutral Good isn't
The opinion that how likely they are to betray you is a sign of how chaotic they are (really? A devil is just as likely to betray you, just by the letter of the law)
The opinion that personal codes need to be pre-written for a lawful neutral character

I could keep going from the previous examples of other posters.

Firstly these are opinions not standards.

Secondly based on the information you have given there isn’t enough information alone to decide some of these points. I’d say pick one and let’s discuss it.

I would happily discuss some of the points with you but it’s quite exhausting trying to respond to the very long posts referencing multiple other posts and making many different points... almost chaotic you might say.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I think D&D alignment needs to become more inhuman and cosmic, not less. In no way does traditional D&D alignment map onto human psychology. But I don't see why that's necessarily a bug. I like the idea of the world influenced by inhuman moral and ethical forces. It's strange, creepy, and introspective. What's not to like?

 

[Hussar]

Meh, like I said, if you can apply diametrically opposed descriptors to the same thing, then your descriptors aren't worth very much.

If you chaotic character is dependable, loyal, methodical and not impulsive, what about that character is chaotic? In what way is that character not lawful?

If it doesn't matter how my characters act, since any alignment can be applied to any personality and, apparently, it's true, then, well, alignment isn't worth anything.

 

[TheSword]

Meh, like I said, if you can apply diametrically opposed descriptors to the same thing, then your descriptors aren't worth very much.

If you chaotic character is dependable, loyal, methodical and not impulsive, what about that character is chaotic? In what way is that character not lawful?

If it doesn't matter how my characters act, since any alignment can be applied to any personality and, apparently, it's true, then, well, alignment isn't worth anything.

You have this completely the wrong way round.

Your character acts however they want to act. Their alignment is a reflection of that, not the other way round.

In earlier editions you picked an alignment and then were rewarded or punished for ‘role playing’ that alignment. Now that element has been removed because we don’t want to tell players how they should be playing their characters.

for players Alignment plays very little impact. It’s a hat they can change as they like. Flaws, Bonds, Ideals and Traits have replaced this but note they are still linked to Alignments to assist selection.

If a player claims to be lawful good and then chooses traits, flaws etc that are chaotic evil and they behave in an a chaotic evil way then they aren’t lawful good. It’s a DMs job to point that out and say, yes your alignment probably needs to be changed on your character sheet.

In the Pathfinder Kingmaker game you can choose any outcomes you like in conversation even though some are linked to particular alignment. This shifts you’re alignment in directions and eventually if you move in one direction enough you cross over.