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.

align.png

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Am I to understand from this example that the LE guy actually wouldn't have killed Bond if he hadn't ordered his martini shaken, not stirred?

The bad guy put a loophole in the contract that he knew would be violated so that he had an excuse to kill Bond. It's likely there was more than one.

There's a reason for the saying "the devil's in the details".
 

log in or register to remove this ad

They are not 'based on' alignment, the alignment is briefly alluded to in the text. But yes, these are actually useful things to ponder when thinking about characters personality and unlike alignment may be helpful for new players who might have trouble coming up with these things otherwise.


And Green Dragons must live in packs and coordinate with each other, instead of being territorial creatures that often clash with other dragons considering that they're lawful?
No, but I would expect a Lawful Evil dragon to work with other powerful creatures, wouldn’t you? I expect LE green dragon to manipulate many powerful creatures into doing what it wants. I believe that was how the dragon Claugiyliamatar was described.
 

The bad guy put a loophole in the contract that he knew would be violated so that he had an excuse to kill Bond. It's likely there was more than one.

There's a reason for the saying "the devil's in the details".
No, but let's say Bond ordered a Heineken instead. Would the villain really not kill him??
 

No, but I would expect a Lawful Evil dragon to work with other powerful creatures, wouldn’t you? I expect LE green dragon to manipulate many powerful creatures into doing what it wants. I believe that was how the dragon Claugiyliamatar was described.
So why does Lawful evil indicate different behaviour in Dragons than in Mind Flayers? Almost like you knew how these creatures behave based on their lore and then tried to retrotit how their alignment fit this behaviour...

Reminds me of the experiment where people were given custom made personalised horoscopes and most of them though that it described them perfectly. Except they weren't actually custom made and were all exactly the same vague and generic BS. But we recognise things that fit and ignore those that don't. So if you have a description of behaviour and an alignment, you can always come up with reason how that alignment matches that behaviour. Because the alignment doesn't actually mean anything.
 

No, but let's say Bond ordered a Heineken instead. Would the villain really not kill him??

Bond ordering a Heineken? Well obviously whoever ordered that so called beer is not British and therefore not James Bond. The contract is null and void. :P

I'm done answering "fishing for gotchas" questions.
 

No, Lawful tells me that they see the value of working with other Mindflayers, even in the absence of the elder brain that acts as their collective conscious. That just happens to coincide with the last 30 years of their use.
So, for Mindflayers, Lawful indicates that they would work together in the absence of a higher authority, but Beholders, who are also Lawful Evil, will often consider each other to be bitter enemies.
 

Bond ordering a Heineken? Well obviously whoever ordered that so called beer is not British and therefore not James Bond. The contract is null and void. :p

I'm done answering "fishing for gotchas" questions.
Well, he has ordered Heineken before...

It's not a "gotcha" question. Seriously. If the answer is "the villain would have killed Bond anyway," then it goes to show that the alignment in question (in this case, LE) isn't really a thing. The villain is Evil, sure, but Lawful Evil? No, that doesn't really make sense. I made the point earlier that LE people always let the E win out over the L. They're 'honourable' as long as it suits them, but as soon as it doesn't or as soon as it's inconvenient...out it goes. The Evil part always takes priority; the letter before it is just dressing. For CE, I think the C actually describes a hindrance; they -can't- manage to gain benefits from anything Lawful; they're ultimately self-destructive.

This is why I believe that Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good don't make sense as alignments, at least not in terms of moral philosophy. Someone else mentioned they should go more cosmic with alignments, and I suppose that might help (still might not make sense though...).
 


Well, he has ordered Heineken before...

It's not a "gotcha" question. Seriously. If the answer is "the villain would have killed Bond anyway," then it goes to show that the alignment in question (in this case, LE) isn't really a thing. The villain is Evil, sure, but Lawful Evil? No, that doesn't really make sense. I made the point earlier that LE people always let the E win out over the L. They're 'honourable' as long as it suits them, but as soon as it doesn't or as soon as it's inconvenient...out it goes. The Evil part always takes priority; the letter before it is just dressing. For CE, I think the C actually describes a hindrance; they -can't- manage to gain benefits from anything Lawful; they're ultimately self-destructive.

This is why I believe that Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good don't make sense as alignments, at least not in terms of moral philosophy. Someone else mentioned they should go more cosmic with alignments, and I suppose that might help (still might not make sense though...).
Then ignore it. Leave it for those of us who do find it useful.
 

So, for Mindflayers, Lawful indicates that they would work together in the absence of a higher authority, but Beholders, who are also Lawful Evil, will often consider each other to be bitter enemies.
Both mind flayers, green dragons and beholders work with other powerful creatures. These are not incompatible with the LE alignments. You’re looking for absolutes when Alignment is broad.

See shackled city.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top