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]

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.

How? What important nuance about Mind Flayers would you be missing if you merely read their lore section and didn't know their alignment?

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.

It doesn't though. Like at all. Short hand tactics descriptor would indeed be useful, but alignment isn't that. 'Ambusher,' 'Brute,' etc would actually be marginally useful for that.

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.

No, not that. most people I play with have understood for decades what a terrible mechanic it is. It just is an useless relic that is an active detriment for the game becoming more inclusive and nuanced so it would be better if it joined THAC0 and demi-human level limits on the sacred cow burial ground.

 

[Oofta]

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.

In previous editions it was a bigger deal. Monks had to be lawful for example and some DMs took their job of policing behavior too far IMHO. You even had penalties for changing alignment.

A lot of this feels like baggage from previous editions that has nothing to do with 5E.

 

[TheSword]

How? What important nuance about Mind Flayers would you be missing if you merely read their lore section and didn't know their alignment?

That they work in concert with others mindflayers in the absence of a controlling elder brain. That they respect authority, that they are likely to have coordinated tactics and approaches to problems. That they are careful planners.

It doesn't though. Like at all. Short hand tactics descriptor would indeed be useful, but alignment isn't that. 'Ambusher,' 'Brute,' etc would actually be marginally useful for that.

No. Ambusher provides next to no information about how a creature behaves outside of combat. Brute maybe a little, that they would react violently. But provides next to no info about how they feel about society and the world around them.

 

[TheSword]

In previous editions it was a bigger deal. Monks had to be lawful for example and some DMs took their job of policing behavior too far IMHO. You even had penalties for changing alignment.

A lot of this feels like baggage from previous editions that has nothing to do with 5E.

Yes I agree. it is possible to use the fun things from earlier editions without bringing across the baggage. Planescape is an awesome setting!

I think a lot of the reaction comes from people thinking it is about telling players how to behave.

Alignment is a product of behaviour for PCs and an inspiration of behaviour for DMs. After all PCs have one character to worry about and DMs have hundreds.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

So when I ask you about whether you have problems running NPCs in non-D&D games lacking alignment systems, you respond with two games with a virtually identical alignment system, including one D&D edition clone?

 

[TheSword]

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.

Players get to say what they do, not what the consequences of that are. Players don’t get to decide that killing babies is good and healing the innocent is evil. If we have a reasonable conversation, you ignore me and leave the space blank but consistently do these things, I’m going to put a little note next to your name on my pad and carry on regardless. Right up to you donning you cloak of the Archmage or interacting with that Hound Archon.

 

[TheSword]

So when I ask you about whether you have problems running NPCs in non-D&D games lacking alignment systems, you respond with two games with a virtually identical alignment system, including one D&D edition clone?

Yes.

I’m struggling to remember what proportion of games played currently in the world are either Pathfinder, D&D, or WFRP... do you think it’s high? I reckon it probably is.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That they work in concert with others mindflayers in the absence of a controlling elder brain. That they respect authority, that they are likely to have coordinated tactics and approaches to problems. That they are careful planners.

That they have coordinated tactics and are careful planners is clear by their lore section and the other conclusions you make are questionable. They're not necessarily true nor are they inevitable conclusion from lawful alignment. For example I'd very much doubt that Mind Flayers have much respect for authority in general.

No. Ambusher provides next to no information about how a creature behaves outside of combat. Brute maybe a little, that they would react violently. But provides next to no info about how they feel about society and the world around them.

You literally said: "Think of Alignment as the short tactics section in some stat blocks in modules." Thus my examples was about keywords that would actually be about tactics. The information how creatures otherwise behave is found on the lore section.

 

[TheSword]

That they have coordinated tactics and are careful planners is clear by their lore section and the other conclusions you make are questionable. They're not necessarily true nor are they inevitable conclusion from lawful alignment. For example I'd very much doubt that Mind Flayers have much respect for authority in general.


You literally said: "Think of Alignment as the short tactics section in some stat blocks in modules." Thus my examples was about keywords that would actually be about tactics. The information how creatures otherwise behave is found on the lore section.

Is it? Can you reference that please for mind flayers. A quote from the MM saying that they work in concert to solve problems in the absence of an elder brain. Do you know how many mind flayers have featured in D&D products over the years... lots? Do you know how many elder brains have featured in products... not many.

have you read many 5e books. Several hundred monsters have been added in the appendixes of campaign books and most have a lore section of a few lines.

 

[Oofta]

Yes I agree. it is possible to use the fun things from earlier editions without bringing across the baggage. Planescape is an awesome setting!

I think a lot of the reaction comes from people thinking it is about telling players how to behave.

Alignment is a product of behaviour for PCs and an inspiration of behaviour for DMs. After all PCs have one character to worry about and DMs have hundreds.

I find alignment useful for my PC (along with other traits, bonds and backstory) because sometimes I want to step out of my own shoes and see the world from a different perspective. Alignment helps me think about how do that.

I find it kind of baffling that an CN can be honest is "proof" that alignment is useless. It seems to go back to very old school definitions.

As far as the alignments of my player's PCs. No clue.

Just a reminder about what the MM has to say about alignment:

A monster’s alignment provides a clue to its disposition and how it behaves in a roleplaying or combat situation. For example, a chaotic evil monster might be difficult to reason with and might attack characters on sight, whereas a neutral monster might be willing to negotiate.​

​

Next paragraph goes on to say that the alignment listed is just a default and do what makes sense.

So a clue to a monster's disposition that might be useful. A default value you can change if you want. Sounds about right to me.