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


log in or register to remove this ad



Insulting other members
Done arguing for the night with rebels without a cause, no plausible alternative and with people have decided they don’t like the system without understanding it. Have fun, I’ll check in tomorrow.
 

So what is a viable alternative to alignment that can be added to a monster stat block to help describe behavior/motivations? Something short that we can talk about.
 

Done arguing for the night with rebels without a cause, no plausible alternative and with people have decided they don’t like the system without understanding it. Have fun, I’ll check in tomorrow.
It doesn't need to be replaced with anything. Most other RPGs don't have alignment system. People still manage to create characters, creatures and NPCs with distinct personalities and motivations just fine. And no one understands the system as the system makes no sense. You have already contradicted yourself several times in this thread about what Lawful means. Not even the people who like the alignment can describe it in coherent manner.
 

It doesn't need to be replaced with anything. Most other RPGs don't have alignment system. People still manage to create characters, creatures and NPCs with distinct personalities and motivations just fine. And no one understands the system as the system makes no sense. You have already contradicted yourself several times in this thread about what Lawful means. Not even the people who like the alignment can describe it in coherent manner.
While this is largely true, I feel the 4e rendition of alignment was fairly coherent, mostly by trimming the fat.
 

So what is a viable alternative to alignment that can be added to a monster stat block to help describe behavior/motivations? Something short that we can talk about.
I think something about their motivations or mode of tactics might be useful. It doesn't really need to describe their society otherwise, that can be in the lore section.

"Aggressive, Organised, Territorial"
"Greedy, Underhanded, Cowardly"
"Reckless, Aggressive, Wants to eat people"

Something like that.
 

Not even the people who like the alignment can describe it in coherent manner.
I have a coherent concept of what Lawful versus Chaotic means. And what Good versus Evil means.

Personally, I view alignment descriptions in D&D as being confused about the difference between Good and Lawful. But 5e descriptions are a bit more consistent.

Perhaps your understanding of alignments remains inconsistent? You mentioned your own definitions of Good and Evil are the "opposite" (!) of D&D definitions. I am unsure what you mean. But there are views of alignments that are consistent, coherent, and unambiguous.

If D&D is to use alignments, its definitions of them must be as crystal clear as possible.
 
Last edited:


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top