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.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That’s because presumably there would be a reason to have the NPC act differently to their alignment. If there was no reason or the description is trivial then you would just follow the alignment wouldn’t you. Or if you don’t need the inspiration ignore it.

So NPC has alignment which can be ignored. What does the alignment add to this then? Why is this functionally different than the GM just deciding what the NPC does?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Communities, magic items, gods, monsters, planes, NPCs that’s a lot of things.

It also underpins the background traits.

But it doesn't add anything to those. All those things still exist without the alignment.

 

[TheSword]

In addition there absolutely will be tribes of evil orcs or gnolls. The designers are just saying that it won’t be assumed that all orcs are evil. Just like we don’t assume that all wizards are evil just because of well... Bargle... Bargle was still evil though and knowing that helps us roleplay him.

 

[TheSword]

But it doesn't add anything to those. All those things still exist without the alignment.

Alignment helps when role playing. You seem to be really struggling with the concept of guidance. Alignment is a guide, it’s not a rule. Change it, don’t change it, but where a specific outcome is not required Alignment provides a guide. Or where an outcome is required but no route is provided, alignment suggests how a creature might approach the situation.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Alignment helps when role playing. You seem to be really struggling with the concept of guidance. Alignment is a guide, it’s not a rule. Change it, don’t change it, but where a specific outcome is not required Alignment provides a guide. Or where an outcome is required but no route is provided, alignment suggests how a creature might approach the situation.

It is super bad roleplaying guidance. Thinking things in such childish binaries does not improve anyone's roleplaying it will make it worse. It is so divorced from real psychology or even literary archetypes that thinking in terms of alignment will actively hurt your attempts to create an interesting and coherent personality. Sure, you can still do it, but you'd be better off starting from the scratch.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In addition there absolutely will be tribes of evil orcs or gnolls. The designers are just saying that it won’t be assumed that all orcs are evil. Just like we don’t assume that all wizards are evil just because of well... Bargle... Bargle was still evil though and knowing that helps us roleplay him.

I'm sure there will be, but describing these orcs simply as 'evil' is still dumbing things down. If we ask the question 'why did Vikings raid England' we might be able to arrive to a tad more nuanced and interesting answer than 'because they were evil.' And once we have that better answer it will open new avenues for interaction and strategy, thus making your games more immersive and your roleplaying better.

 

[TheSword]

It is super bad roleplaying guidance. Thinking things in such childish binaries does not improve anyone's roleplaying it will make it worse. It is so divorced from real psychology or even literary archetypes that thinking in terms of alignment will actively hurt your attempts to create an interesting and coherent personality. Sure, you can still do it, but you'd be better off starting from the scratch.

I think your problem is that you are seeing these as binary when they are in fact a spectrum. The Outerplanar creatures represent opposite ends of the spectrums. Most people fall somewhere in between.

You’re arguing from a position of extremes which is why you’re not getting traction from moderates.

Law / Chaos and Good / Evil axis is a perfectly reasonable way of splitting characters for our stories.

 

[TheSword]

I'm sure there will be, but describing these orcs simply as 'evil' is still dumbing things down. If we ask the question 'why did Vikings raid England' we might be able to arrive to a tad more nuanced and interesting answer than 'because they were evil.' And once we have that better answer it will open new avenues for interaction and strategy, thus making your games more immersive and your roleplaying better.

Nah, thanks. I’m ok with the existence of good and evil in the game. The wicked stepmother can sometimes just be wicked, she doesn’t need to have been beaten by her parents.

I like a fantasy game where objective evil (Sauron, The Devil, Shai’tan, Xoriat, White walkers) exists. That’s not dumbing down its fun. We don’t always want angst and quandry in our games.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Law / Chaos and Good / Evil axis is a perfectly reasonable way of splitting characters for our stories.

If they were, we wouldn't be arguing about what they mean. I literally have an opposite opinion with the creator of D&D about what good and evil mean. People here cannot agree what law and chaos mean. You must see that? Even if that was clear what these things mean to you, you cannot be blind to the fact that people do not agree. This disagreement should make it blindingly obvious that it is not an useful way to convey information.

 

[TheSword]

If they were, we wouldn't be arguing about what they mean. I literally have an opposite opinion with the creator of D&D about what good and evil mean. People here cannot agree what law and chaos mean. You must see that? Even if that was clear what these things mean to you, you cannot be blind to the fact that people do not agree. This disagreement should make it blindingly obvious that it is not an useful way to convey information.

Ok Gygax has some crazy ideas, posters on here have some crazy ideas. It doesn’t mean there isn’t general consensus. We don’t agree with Gygaxs nits and lice comments doesn’t mean we don’t know good and evil when we see it.

I see people selectively quoting Oofta and misrepresenting what he said to make it look like he’s inconsistent. I see people speaking about corner cases as if they’re definitive.

Alignments are a bit like the planes themselves. Some things are easily identifiable as good, evil, chaotic, lawful. However where those things meet it bleeds at the edges. Those edges are where the debate happens but it doesn’t mean there aren’t easily identifiable elements of each.