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.

 

[Oofta]

What are you on about? Theocracy is a thing. And nowhere was it implied that theocracy is synonymous with religious.

Not that I care about this thread any more, but just have to say , huh? The definition of theocracy is "a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities. "

How is that not religious? It's not an implication, it's the definition of the word.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not that I care about this thread any more, but just have to say , huh? The definition of theocracy is "a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities. "

How is that not religious? It's not an implication, it's the definition of the word.

Yes, theocracies are religious (or at a minimum at least pretend to be.) But they are not the same thing, just like 'wealthy' and 'plutocracy' are not the same thing. Haldrik for some reason took exception to the word being used on the basis of it being insulting to religious people. Which is bizarre. It is not insulting to say that Vatican is a theocracy.

 

[Maxperson]

I have a question: let's assume that Monster Manual was exactly like it is now, except the stat blocks din't have the aliginment. All the descriptions remain as they are. How would this affect how you play these creatures? What actual information about their behaviour would you lack? (Assuming here that you didn't remember what their alignments used to be.)

I would lack the ability to quickly see what the creature is generally about. I don't want to have to study up and memorize the lore for every creature I run. Having both there so I can pick and choose which times I use lore and which times I just got with the quick alignment is invaluable to me.

For players, I agree that a single alignment cannot encompass a complex personality, but even then alignment is a quick and easy aid to new players or those who don't want to make a complex personality.

 

[jsaving]

That said, I do wonder if some of the more stringient defenders of alignment have played other RPGs that do not have alignment and, if so, if they felt that not having alignment actually hampered their ability to portray NPCs and monsters (if applicable). Myself, having played several RPGs that don't have alignments, I don't see alignment as being necessary in the slightest—there are far better ways of determining a character's worldview and outlook.

I think alignment is both better and worse than the way other RPGs do it, if that's a permissible answer. "Better" because it provides a broad statement of principles that applies no matter what situation or even campaign world a character finds himself. "Worse" because it doesn't actually specify what you would do in any given situation, leaving open the possibility that different people with the same alignment could act differently despite having similar philosophical cores.

Whether you find such a system useful depends on the role you want alignment to play. It certainly isn't a replacement for drive/cypher systems that provide concrete guidance for what creatures will do in specific situations. Nor is it a substitute for contact/faction systems that concretely summarize which specific people or organizations you respect. But alignment can help put those other factors in context by explaining why a character has them.

In my campaigns we've always used all of the above and I don't see any conflict in having a D&D-type alignment system while also tracking factions and noting drives. In many ways I think this enriches rather than detracts from alignment because it enables you to better see how and why characters with the same philosophical cores can end up on different sides of the same issue. But I can see how an all-of-the-above approach could be considered unnecessary by people who either think alignment already tells you everything you need to know or by those who think there's no value-added in it at all.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

He might have, but only if he could find sharks with frickin laser beams.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Couple of things after checking in...

Hags are like family units not organization. They literally become more powerful by working as coven. They don’t work together because it’s efficient they do so because there are certain things they can only do as threes. Three witches has been a thing since, well, Greek times.

You’re trying to look at specific creatures and say look... one aspect of how they behave looks lawful to me, and then say ha, alignment doesn’t work. However there are lots of things that influence this and you have to step back and see the bigger picture. How do they view society and the world.

You’re trying to boil big vistas into small details and draw incorrect conclusions from that. Look at that pastoral landscape, there is a houses in it. Houses exist in towns so this must be an urban landscape instead. Step back stop trying to look for reasons why it doesn’t work and you’ll see that broadly it does.

Alignments flexibility is a feature not a bug. It’s why in one campaign setting we can have fey that are playful, good natured and friendly, and in a grittier setting we can have fey that are whimsical, unpredictable, unstable and dangerous. Just by changing CG to CN. It tells me in two letters a wealth of information as DM about those particular fey. CG might say, you must go every hours you spend in our glade is like a year in the outside world. CN fey wouldn’t care, or might even think it’s funny.

Lore descriptions are fine, but they only tell us what the writer thinks to tell us. The writer cant think of everything, neither should they have to. Alignment helps to fill the gaps and act as a starting point for a creative process. Most monsters have kept the same alignments for decades. They have been able to be reinvented in multiple settings by looking at different way alignment and physiology might make them behave. There are notable exceptions (Orcs, Drow) but designers are free to their creations if they want. It’s just that most don’t.

Additionally most stat blocks (looking at the number released in the many campaign books have very little lore. Particularly the NPCs.

Alignment is a universal system that can equally apply to a monster, a plane of existence, or a magic sword. That is a pretty flexible system to my mind and shouldnt be tossed away lightly.

There is far too much nail biting based on the few lines in the PHB. The descriptions should probably be refined in a short essay in Xanathars Guide to expand on things. To help explain the difference between a moral code and a set of personal values. I’m comfortable with the difference but others seem to really find it difficult. Some need someone else to tell them what The right way to think is I guess.

Alignment is not perfect, but it’s a flexible, nuanced system that’s helpful to me. It could be expanded upon for 5e to clarify it for those that aren’t familiar with it from earlier editions, or that can’t distance earlier editions from the things left behind. No alternative proposed, with the radicals saying we don’t need it... just use a page of lore instead that in many cases doesn’t exist.

I love how the people who defend alignment keep saying "stop looking at the problems and inconsistencies, instead try and understand why it actually works really well and you'll see that it works really well."

That nail biting over the "few lines" in the PHB? That is talking about the rules for alignment. Those few lines are it. A person picking up the book for the first time isn't looking at decades of expeirence running monsters, they have those few lines to go off of. They haven't read Gygax's letters, or Three Hearts and Three Lions, or Moorcock, or any of it.

They've got about half a page in the PHB.

Also, you still are ignoring the actual point about the Hags. You said "Lawful tells me Mind Flayers will work with other Mind Flayers if they don't have an Elder Brain controlling them." This implies quite heavily that if they were Neutral or Chaotic, this would not be the case. Beholders are Lawful, but they do not work with other Beholders. Hags are neutral or chaotic, but they do work with other hags.

So, how did Lawful tell you Mind Flayers work together? It couldn't be because Beholders will work with other intelligent beings. It couldn't be that Neutral creatures won't work together, because of Hags. So, what was it that caused alignment to fill in that gap for Mind Flayers?

I would lack the ability to quickly see what the creature is generally about. I don't want to have to study up and memorize the lore for every creature I run. Having both there so I can pick and choose which times I use lore and which times I just got with the quick alignment is invaluable to me.

For players, I agree that a single alignment cannot encompass a complex personality, but even then alignment is a quick and easy aid to new players or those who don't want to make a complex personality.

But, as we have shown, repeatedly many of these alignments are not actually telling you anything about the creature.

Here, I am going to assume that most people on here have not memorized the Tome of Beasts from Kobold Press. It is 5e compatible, so let me just grab a monster.

Alseid -Chaotic Neutral

Tell me about them. What are they generally about?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

It's always nice seeing someone who is utterly uninterested in being shown to be wrong with counter examples. But, for the audience watching at home, let's see where this leads:

Death Tyrants move around when the local source of undead slaves is exhausted. They change their environs to the point that they get lair actions. Maybe they don't change their lifestyle to react to their environs, unless you count battle tactics. Their arrival and departure certainly create change for others in the area, which seems pretty chaos-y. Three out of four statements that were just used to justify calling nomadic tribes chaotic apply to Death Tyrants just as well. So what are we to make of Death Tyrants being Lawful? Is it possible that these criteria are not in fact sufficient to label something as Chaotic?

I thought I was pretty explicit in what my point was with that example. I even began not one but two sentences with the three words "The point is..." But if you want to throw out "counterexamples" which completely fail to address that point, I guess I can't stop you. Go nuts. Maybe you're even right. It's irrelevant.

 

[Oofta]

I love how the people who defend alignment keep saying "stop looking at the problems and inconsistencies, instead try and understand why it actually works really well and you'll see that it works really well."

That nail biting over the "few lines" in the PHB? That is talking about the rules for alignment. Those few lines are it. A person picking up the book for the first time isn't looking at decades of expeirence running monsters, they have those few lines to go off of. They haven't read Gygax's letters, or Three Hearts and Three Lions, or Moorcock, or any of it.

They've got about half a page in the PHB.

Also, you still are ignoring the actual point about the Hags. You said "Lawful tells me Mind Flayers will work with other Mind Flayers if they don't have an Elder Brain controlling them." This implies quite heavily that if they were Neutral or Chaotic, this would not be the case. Beholders are Lawful, but they do not work with other Beholders. Hags are neutral or chaotic, but they do work with other hags.

So, how did Lawful tell you Mind Flayers work together? It couldn't be because Beholders will work with other intelligent beings. It couldn't be that Neutral creatures won't work together, because of Hags. So, what was it that caused alignment to fill in that gap for Mind Flayers?






But, as we have shown, repeatedly many of these alignments are not actually telling you anything about the creature.

Here, I am going to assume that most people on here have not memorized the Tome of Beasts from Kobold Press. It is 5e compatible, so let me just grab a monster.

Alseid -Chaotic Neutral

Tell me about them. What are they generally about?

I love how people tell others that find alignment useful that they don't know what they're talking about. Since they can twist and nitpick it into things it's not meant to be. That it can't possibly be useful no matter how much the majority of players find it useful at least occasionally.

Because you can tell everybody else what they think and find useful. I find it useful. I think it's consistent enough unless you make it a straight jacket and try to make it something it's not. You haven't shown anything other than your insistence that you are right, no matter what.

Ignore alignment if it doesn't make sense to you. I'm going to continue using it as the general descriptor that I always have. It tells me a little bit about how the monster views the world, what their general disposition is. Just like it says in the MM. It does not dictate every aspect of their behavior nor does every creature with the same alignment think or react exactly the same. I don't know of anyone that expects that.

P.S. Underlying and bolding doesn't change the argument.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

That nail biting over the "few lines" in the PHB? That is talking about the rules for alignment. Those few lines are it. A person picking up the book for the first time isn't looking at decades of expeirence running monsters, they have those few lines to go off of. They haven't read Gygax's letters, or Three Hearts and Three Lions, or Moorcock, or any of it.

I haven't read Gygax's letters, or Three Hearts and Three Lions, or Moorcock. I figured out an interpretation of those few lines that works for me and my group. Players who approach that system with an open mind can do this. And players who can't or don't want to can run their games without alignment. Nobody's head explodes with logical contradictions, everybody wins.

Alseid -Chaotic Neutral

Tell me about them. What are they generally about?

Manyjaws - evocation

Tell me how the spell works.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I love how people tell others that find alignment useful that they don't know what they're talking about. Since they can twist and nitpick it into things it's not meant to be. That it can't possibly be useful no matter how much the majority of players find it useful at least occasionally.

Because you can tell everybody else what they think and find useful. I find it useful. I think it's consistent enough unless you make it a straight jacket and try to make it something it's not. You haven't shown anything other than your insistence that you are right, no matter what.

Ignore alignment if it doesn't make sense to you. I'm going to continue using it as the general descriptor that I always have. It tells me a little bit about how the monster views the world, what their general disposition is. Just like it says in the MM. It does not dictate every aspect of their behavior nor does every creature with the same alignment think or react exactly the same. I don't know of anyone that expects that.

P.S. Underlying and bolding doesn't change the argument.

Many people find horoscopes useful. They're still arbitrarily made up vague nonsense that only have connection to a person's life by pure luck. The thing is every time people tell some concrete example how alignment tells them something useful, it instantly falls apart under scrutiny, like we saw when we tried to examine whether alignment actually correlates to creatures willingness to cooperate. (Claim was that it does, actual evidence suggest that it doesn't.)