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.

 

[TheSword]

The explanation seems to mostly amount to “just because” or pointing to the cosmological Great Wheel of Circular Logic.

Nope. A lawful evil person could be driven by a desire for order and stability no matter who it hurts. Draconian order to set an example and discourage acting out. Curtailing of freedom to prevent anarchy - v for vendetta.

A chaotic evil person could believe that weakness is bad for society that conflict weeds out the weak. Strength or power is a source of pride and a way of protecting what you have.

 

[Oofta]

My PC had a single trait with that is generally considered lawful. His justification for it had nothing to do with with law or order.

Just because someone is chaotic doesn't mean they constantly lie.

As far as the MM lacking alignment? It would be a pain in the ass to find monsters to fit specific roles without having an in-depth understanding of the fluff of every monster in the book. A fair amount of fluff would have be added to replace what 2 letters tell me.

Alignment (and CR) is frequently where I start my search for a monster if I need inspiration. If a monster (or group of monsters) is going to play an important role in my campaign I can read the fluff and decide if I want to use it.

Again though, why get rid of it? Use it, don't use it. Up to you. Don't take away a tool other people find useful that causes you zero issues.

 

[Voadam]

Alignment in a monster description is a general descriptor using flexible terms.

Just because people differ on what the terms mean does not mean it is useless, it will just come out differently under different DMs. Similarly for PCs using alignment as a hook into their character concept.

For example orcs in A&D were Lawful Evil despite having been Chaotic in Basic D&D and then Chaotic Evil in 3e and beyond.

So a DM can look at the LE designation and think what concepts of Law can I apply to orcs that will be interesting and make sense.

They could come up with orcs being accepting of authority and following orders so they readily fall in as armies of orc warlords or other BBEGs and you generally have classic orcs in D&D.

Alternatively you can have a different DM saying orcs are templated on an evil version of Warf the Klingon from Star Trek the Next Generation, a warrior tradition very focused on honor and aggressively meeting perceived threats or challenges. Orcs with Stovokor and such is an interesting take and a decent hook from the LE cue.

It is also possible to reject the concept of LE as a label for Klingons conceptually and say they are Chaotic.

Consider also wraiths and ghosts in 3e. Wraiths and spectres are based on Ring-Wraith templates from Lord of the Rings and are evil, a DM knows they will generally be adversarial bad guys and there is lore about how being turned into one turns you evil. Ghosts can be any alignment. So a ghost can be a bad guy but also a helpful adviser like Lion-O's dad in Thundercats. Both DMs and players generally know in 3e that some spirits like wraiths are always adversarial evil, while ghosts you have a range. So when told in game there is one or the other you can approach them differently, loaded for bear or full avoidance for evil wraiths, with a number of different possible approaches for a ghost such as researching them or talking to them.

These are decent ways to use alignment descriptors, and are not useless simply because different people will pick up descriptions of orcs and run things differently.

Alignment generally becomes problematic at the interface of DM and players judging the alignment of a PC when there is a disagreement on interpretation and on how a character should be played. The prior editions' use of having paladins fall for any evil action was particularly prone to spurring conflict over the definition of evil acts.

 

[Aldarc]

Nope. A lawful evil person could be driven by a desire for order and stability no matter who it hurts. Draconian order to set an example and discourage acting out. Curtailing of freedom to prevent anarchy - v for vendetta.

A chaotic evil person could believe that weakness is bad for society that conflict weeds out the weak. Strength or power is a source of pride and a way of protecting what you have.

I’m at a loss about how alignment helps achieve these explanations anymore than a system without them.

I have played a fair share of non-D&D TRRPGs that lack alignments and don’t have a problem with explaining motivations for NPCs and the like.

In your experience, do YOU have problems running NPCs in alignment-less games?

 

[TheSword]

I’m at a loss about how alignment helps achieve these explanations anymore than a system without them.

I have played a fair share of non-D&D TRRPGs that lack alignments and don’t have a problem with explaining motivations for NPCs and the like.

In your experience, do YOU have problems running NPCs in alignment-less games?

I play WFRP if I want gritty fantasy. They use the Lawful - Good - Neutral - Evil - Chaos axis. Not much different to be fair. Never had a problem with it.

I play pathfinder as well... they take the tripartate axis just as far.

Of course you don’t NEED the D&D structure to come up with the idea. The Alignment just gives me an indication of whether the creature/NPC will believe the first or the second. it provides inspiration and guidance.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

Never once seen someone refer to their Reason (the mental powers concerned with forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences) as their Conscience (an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior. )

But I know better than to try and argue with you over your definitions of words.

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

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.

If you refuse to have the conversation, then refuse to have it. I don't see what you constantly calling me out is supposed to accomplish. Especially since I have answered your demands twice.

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?

What was that about strawmanning? You'll note that in my posts, I have constantly pointed out the details people have added to the system. If you think I am wrong about those points, discuss it. If you would rather challenge me to think about what I want out of life, kindly stop.

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.

That was sort of the point. You asked what standards people were using, well all of those are things people have said.

I called them opinions because if I called them anything else, my point would be dismissed out of hand.

Really, the Tribal People being less Lawful than City Folk is the biggest red flag in my opinion, and that keeps coming up.

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.

Sounds like they don't get to decide their alignment. Sounds like the DM gets to determine it for them. At that point, if a DM was telling me to change my alignment on my sheet because of how my character was acting... well, I'd probably tell him that the space is blank and I'm not writing anything in there anyways.

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?

No, because some where you would have to have pages of information defining those letters. Plus, you'd lose out on some cool lore. The books don't tell us that Aboleths are Lawful, they show us by telling us what they do. Show, don't tell.

My chaotic barbarian did not care about laws, titles, rules or societal norms. He was also impulsive, drank to excess, felt little responsibility to clean up the messes he made, was quick to anger.

He was compulsively honest because he thought lying was a sign of personal weakness. It was not because of external rules. Chaotic doesn't mean you can't develop friendships or bond with other people.

He had personal standards, but they were his and his alone. If I had to write it down it would have been something along the lines of "be strong in words and body, agree to payment first". Hardly an in depth, ironclad contract. He thought everyone should have their own unique style, following a code written in a book or dictated by someone else simply because of tradition, inheritance or law was stupid.

Other than not lying, he was not lawful in the least.

I'm curious @Oofta , did he have a clan or tribe? Did he care about any of their laws or traditions? I'm not trying to catch you in a trap or anything.

It just occurs to me that you just listed three things "laws" "titles" "societal norms" that are supposed to show that this barbarian is chaotic.... but would they really show that?

For example, I just looked up a wierd Ohio law. It is illegal for more than five women to live in a house at the same time. Not even talking about Ohioans, do you think someone from Canada would care about that law? How about Germany? Your barbarian doesn't care about laws, but how often was he subjected to laws from his own society. Same with titles, I understand that there is a difference between a Duke, A Marquiss and a Baron, but I'm not going to treat them any differently than anyone else, because those titles aren't part of my society.

This is a perennial problem with alignment. If you are chaotic for ignoring laws, but you are not from the society those laws are meant to govern, are you really chaotic for not following every foreign law?

You’re confusing PC autonomy with NPC role playing advice... they’re totally different things.

And yet you yourself have said in a previous post " It’s a DMs job to point that out and say, yes your alignment probably needs to be changed on your character sheet." It is a little ways up in this post.

So, the PCs autonomy is met with the DMs job to tell them which two word description they really are, despite their, you know, actual beliefs on the subject.

How to approach anything not related to their stat block.

So you would ignore lore immediately next to the statblock?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How to approach anything not related to their stat block.

So you don't read the lore section next to the stat block?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

For example orcs in A&D were Lawful Evil despite having been Chaotic in Basic D&D and then Chaotic Evil in 3e and beyond.

So a DM can look at the LE designation and think what concepts of Law can I apply to orcs that will be interesting and make sense.

They could come up with orcs being accepting of authority and following orders so they readily fall in as armies of orc warlords or other BBEGs and you generally have classic orcs in D&D.

Alternatively you can have a different DM saying orcs are templated on an evil version of Warf the Klingon from Star Trek the Next Generation, a warrior tradition very focused on honor and aggressively meeting perceived threats or challenges. Orcs with Stovokor and such is an interesting take and a decent hook from the LE cue.

It is also possible to reject the concept of LE as a label for Klingons conceptually and say they are Chaotic.

So Klingons can be described either as Lawful or Chaotic? The Klingons remain the same, but because alignment is arbitrary nonsense, you can justify slapping either label on them. How the hell can this be an useful description then?

Klingons BTW indeed exhibit both lawful and chaotic tendencies. They are impulsive, aggressive and believe personal might making right (chaotic). but they are honourable and place great importance on upholding traditions (lawful.) Now labelling them either lawful or chaotic would feel wrong and describing them as neutral would lose this important dichotomy. So yet again alignment is a crap descriptor. And we didn't even get to the good vs. evil axis there.

 

[TheSword]

So you don't read the lore section next to the stat block?

I don’t ignore it. Alignment is short hand. It often doesn’t explain how a creature thinks though. Alignment fills that gap and exposition in the Lore expands upon it.

Think of Alignment as the short tactics section in some stat blocks in modules. You’re free to do something different or modify it. But in the absence of an alternative it gives you a good base point in normal situations.

I really don’t understand why it gets some people in a tiz. Maybe bad experiences with DMs telling them how to roleplay their characters.

 

[TheSword]

So Klingons can be described either as Lawful or Chaotic? The Klingons remain the same, but because alignment is arbitrary nonsense, you can justify slapping either label on them. How the hell can this be an useful description then?

Klingons BTW indeed exhibit both lawful and chaotic tendencies. They are impulsive, aggressive and believe personal might making right (chaotic). but they are honourable and place great importance on upholding traditions (lawful.) Now labelling them either lawful or chaotic would feel wrong and describing them as neutral would lose this important dichotomy. So yet again alignment is a crap descriptor. And we didn't even get to the good vs. evil axis there.

I don’t think anger is an outlook personally, it’s a reaction to their outlook. Claiming someone is chaotic because they’re angry is a stretch. Righteous anger and all that...

You do you though.

Personally the Klingons can be anything they want to be. Klingon that controlled their impulsiveness might be more lawful. One that embraced it chaotic. Nonetheless each Klingon will fall somewhere on that spectrum. if the mix is even then they’re neutral. Neutral seems to be a good description to me if there is a contradiction in the nature.