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]

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.

Agreed. There's nothing in there that I disagree with actually.

But, I just got told that being a loyal, honorable, dependable character is Chaotic.

Since any alignment can be justified and fit any character regardless of their behavior or actions, then alignment has no meaning.

 

[Lanefan]

Your players are not allowed to interpret alignment? They never argue with your interpretations? That must be a nice change.

They can argue with my interpretations all they like, and sometimes do, but in the end my-as-DM's interpretation is final.

Player: Oh, yes I am. I am 100% chaotic neutral.
Me: But, your character is completely trustworthy, never acts impulsively, always cares about others, and has never actually done anything chaotic in any of our adventures.
Player: My character is 100% chaotic neutral.
Me: How? In what way is this character CN?
Player: I just choose to be this way. I don't have to be.
Me: Buh? That's not how this works. If your character chooses to act Lawful Good and never does anything other than act 100% Lawful Good, then, well, the character is Lawful Good.
Player: Absolutely not! My character is CN.

I gather the context here was that it had not been made abundantly clear in session zero that the DM's word is law?

Headache solved if it had been. Character's LG according to anything that detects for such. End of story.

Want it to be some other alignment? Then play it that way.

 

[Lanefan]

That already exist.

that seems to be the point being missed with what I am trying to say. I'm not saying we need to add a half page of lore for every monster, I'm saying all monsters already have a half page of lore that does a better job of telling us what they are about and their general attitudes and preferences than alignment does.

So, if we already have "long combersome descriptions" which are cutting our product lengths down because they are taking up space... why don't we use them?

Wouldn't it be more efficient if we could beat that existing half-page of lore per monster down to a quarter-page of lore plus a few capital letters, and then force those few letters to mean something?

 

[TheSword]

They can argue with my interpretations all they like, and sometimes do, but in the end my-as-DM's interpretation is final.

I gather the context here was that it had not been made abundantly clear in session zero that the DM's word is law?

Headache solved if it had been. Character's LG according to anything that detects for such. End of story.

Want it to be some other alignment? Then play it that way.

My personal opinion here, and it is just my opinion, is that there are a whole range of Alignment neutral personalities that don’t cause a shift in either direction or are only very mildly aligned.

If I am consistently a thug who has no respect for authority, sees possession as 9/10ths of the law, is likely to fly into a rage at the slightest provocation no matter how trivial and reacts disproportionately. My consistency and predictability in this (lawful ideas) dont even scratch the surface of the chaotic side.

Thus a dependable, honorable and loyal character can still be chaotic. Those descriptions while mildly aligned to law are not strong. Now let’s say the character had a rigid system of honour that it stuck to even when it was inconvenient, then that might change things. How things are played out are more important that a couple of words in a description.

 

[Hussar]

They can argue with my interpretations all they like, and sometimes do, but in the end my-as-DM's interpretation is final.

I gather the context here was that it had not been made abundantly clear in session zero that the DM's word is law?

Headache solved if it had been. Character's LG according to anything that detects for such. End of story.

Want it to be some other alignment? Then play it that way.

But, @Oofta just told me that this character, like his barbarian, is Chaotic. Who's right? You or him?

 

[Lanefan]

My personal opinion here, and it is just my opinion, is that there are a whole range of Alignment neutral personalities that don’t cause a shift in either direction or are only very mildly aligned.

If I am consistently a thug who has no respect for authority, sees possession as 9/10ths of the law, is likely to fly into a rage at the slightest provocation no matter how trivial and reacts disproportionately. My consistency and predictability in this (lawful ideas) dont even scratch the surface of the chaotic side.

Er...this character's chaotic to the core, and being consistently and predictably chaotic is still chaotic.

How things are played out are more important that a couple of words in a description.

How things are played out is what generates those couple of words in the description, for a PC. I don't care what it says on your character sheet; if your PC is played as NG then the game - via me the DM - is going to call it NG.

For a monster who the PCs are likely to meet once and kill, the 'couple of words' presuppose those things have already been done in its past to put those words there; or in case of a whole society, they show how that society trends in general.

 

[Lanefan]

But, @Oofta just told me that this character, like his barbarian, is Chaotic. Who's right? You or him?

Who's right? Whichever one of me or Oofta is sitting in the DM's chair at the time.

 

[Aldarc]

Who's right? Whichever one of me or Oofta is sitting in the DM's chair at the time.

So alignment is just a meaningless exercise of solipsism?

 

[TheSword]

So alignment is just a meaningless exercise of solipsism?

The beauty of Alignment is that it’s broad strokes approach means it is flexible to fit many interpretations of detail while still allowing broad generalizations. An overly rigid system would be unpalatable.

The changes to Paladin neatly ended 90% of debates about alignment. It was the only circumstance where it really mattered table to table how one DMs interpretation compared to another, and only them where a player changed tables.

While it may be less relevant for PCs it is still very relevant for NPCs, world building and the planar elements of the game. Along with the nature’s of many extra-planar creatures.

 

[Hussar]

The beauty of Alignment is that it’s broad strokes approach means it is flexible to fit many interpretations of detail while still allowing broad generalizations. An overly rigid system would be unpalatable.

The changes to Paladin neatly ended 90% of debates about alignment. It was the only circumstance where it really mattered table to table how one DMs interpretation compared to another, and only them where a player changed tables.

While it may be less relevant for PCs it is still very relevant for NPCs, world building and the planar elements of the game. Along with the nature’s of many extra-planar creatures.

Descriptors that are so broad that opposing descriptors can both be applied to the same thing and mean that same thing, then those descriptors are essentially meaningless. If the only way to make alignment function is to play the "I'm the DM, It's my ball" card, then that is a very, very poorly written rule.

We've thankfully ejected all that crap require DM's to play the Big Daddy Chair card over the past twenty years or so. This is just one more for the pile.