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.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

All those other mechanics at least demonstrably do something, and we can objectively know what. We can rationally discuss their merits. Not even alignment defenders can coherently explain what alignment does, every time they try to explain they contradict themselves.

What the mechanic does? It's a flag for certain game effects, like rakshasa vulnerability and the requirements to wear the robes of the archmagi. That's pretty straightforward.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What the mechanic does? It's a flag that triggers certain game effects, like rakshasa vulnerability and the requirements to wear the robes of the archmagi. That's pretty straightforward.

Yes. Those are few rare instances where they forgot to remove the mechanical effects. But those are anomalies. We are talking its usefulness as a descriptor, and things are not looking great on that front. If people cannot agree on what a descriptor means it is a bad descriptor.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Orcs, in my game - not sure about the current edition without looking, are Chaotic Evil. The only way they organize is through fear and intimidation. An Orc obeys his superior because if he does not he knows he will be punished or killed. And, the Orc knows his fellow Orcs do not have his back They are worried about themselves, not him.

I liked the majority of your post, but this stands out to me, because again, while you say "this is chaotic evil" there are details here that are the exact same details as Lawful evil.

For example: The Orc obeys because if he does not he will be punished or killed.

What happens to a devil who breaks the law of the Nine Hells? They would be punished or killed.

Orcs don't have each other backs, they are worried about themselves, not each other. Same with Devils, they are all out for themselves and won't stick their neck out for a fellow Devil unless it helps them or they are forced to.

How are the Nine Hells organized? Spying, torture, brutal punishments? Sounds like they are organized through fear and intimidation.


So, why is all of this not Lawful Evil and is instead Chaotic Evil?

Okay. Cool. You don't have to like it. Does that mean nobody else should? That's where the blinders come in: not in deciding you don't like something, but in arguing, over the course of a sixty-page thread without any success, that other people should stop liking this thing because you don't.

I never once said people can't like it.

I just keep saying it isn't accomplishing the goals people are saying it is accomplishing.

You can like a broken system, just don't expect me to say that it isn't broken.

Absolutely nobody is denying that you need further information besides alignment to run a creature. The question is what follows from it. If the point you're trying to prove we should drop from the game descriptors which do not provide complete information on their own about how to run the thing described, this implies that the schools of magic should also be dropped from the game. Should the schools of magic be dropped from the game? What about damage types? Creature types? Size categories?

See there is a difference here.

Size Categories? Defined. No one has to argue how large Large is, or how small a Small creature is. We have set limits for those.

Creature Types? Very heavily defined. Constructs, we know what a construct is, and can define it. Nothing that is not a construct has the same group of traits. Unead? Same thing. Dragons? Same thing.

Damage types? Defined. No one can argue that bludgeoning damage and lightning damage are the same thing. There might be some that are a bit odd (radiant and force) but the vast majority of them are quite well laid out and the mechanics associated with them are fairly consistent.

Schools of magic? They interact only very loosely with anything, and the few things that care about them handle the vagueness of the system quite well. And since the school matters so rarely, and is only affecting things on the most abstract level, it tends to be fine.


But with alignment, it is meant to define a broad scope of actions and personalities that seems almost constantly contradictory.

To do this I only need two more things: a physical description, and the type of terrain/environment in which they usually live. Any monster entry in any system is going to provide those.

Failing that, I could make it up from scratch.

You are right about the picture, but that terrain/environment sounds an awful lot like needing to look at some lore. The stat block certainly doesn't contain that information.


But, sure I can throw up the picture I suppose.

 

[Oofta]

Missing the point.

What am I missing? You really don't like alignment. I do and use it now and then. While I've had conversations about the nature of alignment now and then no player or DM I've ever had experienced serious issues with it. Most find it useful, at least occasionally.

You don't like it. As far as I can tell, most people do.

Remember the first part of this thread? The announcement that WoTC might be looking into changing or removing alignment?

It is possible that the game designers are moving away from it, in which case it will be removed. This discussion is mostly about whether or not that would be bad for the game.

They might be making it clear that alignment is the DMs choice for humanoids in future products. There's no indication they're getting rid of alignment across the board that I've seen.

Anyway it goes back to the same thing. We can keep it because a lot of people find it useful while you can ignore it. Or we can take away a feature a lot of people like because it seems to give you and a few others conniptions.

In any case, I just replied because I get tired of people telling me what I should think and that holding an opinion you disagree with is "laughable".

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Yes. Those are few rare instances where they forgot to remove the mechanical effects. But those are anomalies. We are talking its usefulness as a descriptor, and things are not looking great on that front. If people cannot agree on what a descriptor means it is a bad descriptor.

So if I say that a foot of standing water is not sufficient to constitute "difficult terrain", and you say that a foot of standing water is sufficient to constitute "difficult terrain", then we cannot agree on what "difficult terrain" means, it's a bad descriptor, and should be removed from the game, right?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So if I say that a foot of standing water is not sufficient to constitute "difficult terrain", and you say that a foot of standing water is sufficient to constitute "difficult terrain", then we cannot agree on what "difficult terrain" means, it's a bad descriptor, and should be removed from the game, right?

This is a bit tortured analogy. It is quite diffent sort of a rule. But we can at least agree on what difficult terrain does. But if indeed disagreements about it were as common than about the alignment, going so far that even one person could not describe the concept coherently, then that certainly would indicate serious issues with the rule. This however is not the case.

 

[R_Chance]

I liked the majority of your post, but this stands out to me, because again, while you say "this is chaotic evil" there are details here that are the exact same details as Lawful evil.

For example: The Orc obeys because if he does not he will be punished or killed.

What happens to a devil who breaks the law of the Nine Hells? They would be punished or killed.

Orcs don't have each other backs, they are worried about themselves, not each other. Same with Devils, they are all out for themselves and won't stick their neck out for a fellow Devil unless it helps them or they are forced to.

How are the Nine Hells organized? Spying, torture, brutal punishments? Sounds like they are organized through fear and intimidation.


So, why is all of this not Lawful Evil and is instead Chaotic Evil?

It has to do with why (in my opinion / game) the Orc does what he does (obey). He fears an individual personal consequence resulting from fear of a superior power. That is Chaotic (individual consequence / fear with nothing to do with any group) and Evil (he's going to be killed) by an individual. It's like the argumentative, rebellious, disobedient, occasionally deserting, Orcs in the Lord of the Rings books. Lawful Evil characters are on board with the organization. They believe in the group, they would just like to improve their position and be on top of the heap. Like Devils

Again, my 2 cp and I know the results may look similar, but the reasoning is different and the actions of the creatures are different. Orcs are grumbly angry individuals being forced to toe the line, Devils are more like corporate executives looking to move up at any cost by any means. Both suck, but differently

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I never once said people can't like it.

I just keep saying it isn't accomplishing the goals people are saying it is accomplishing.

But you seem to have unusual ideas about what people are saying it is accomplishing. For instance, you're spending a lot of effort saying that it doesn't accomplish the goal of providing a complete description of how a creature behaves, when people aren't saying that. Consider the possibility that people like alignment because it is accomplishing the goals they have for it; they're just not the goals you think they are.

See there is a difference here.

Size Categories? Defined. No one has to argue how large Large is, or how small a Small creature is. We have set limits for those.

Centaurs, goliaths, firbolgs, bugbears, dwarves, snakes... there are lots of ways creatures can try the definitions of the size categories.

Creature Types? Very heavily defined. Constructs, we know what a construct is, and can define it. Nothing that is not a construct has the same group of traits. Unead? Same thing. Dragons? Same thing.

Is Orcus an undead or a fiend?
Is Juiblex an ooze or a fiend?
Is Bahamut a dragon or a celestial?
Is a half-dragon a dragon or a humanoid?
Is a dryad a plant or a fey?
Is a fomorian a fey or a giant?
Is a merrow a giant or a monstrosity?
Is a grick a monstrosity or an aberration?
Is a will-o'-wisp an aberration or an undead?
Is an ankheg a monstrosity or a beast?

If someone really wanted to, they could pretty easily launch an attack on the creature type system using your arguments.

Damage types? Defined. No one can argue that bludgeoning damage and lightning damage are the same thing. There might be some that are a bit odd (radiant and force) but the vast majority of them are quite well laid out and the mechanics associated with them are fairly consistent.

The vast majority of the differences between good and evil are pretty obvious. This whole debate is focusing on corner cases.

Schools of magic? They interact only very loosely with anything, and the few things that care about them handle the vagueness of the system quite well. And since the school matters so rarely, and is only affecting things on the most abstract level, it tends to be fine.

But school matters more than alignment does. The wizard subclasses all care about the schools of magic, and the detect magic spell detects school, whereas detect good and evil no longer detects alignment. If "it doesn't matter" is a defense for school, surely it's an even better defense for alignment.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

This is a bit tortured analogy. It is quite diffent sort of a rule. But we can at least agree on what difficult terrain does. But if indeed disagreements about it were as common than about the alignment, going so far that even one person could not describe the concept coherently, then that certainly would indicate serious issues with the rule. This however is not the case.

We agree on what alignment does: it lets you stab rakshasas real good. Disagreements about alignment are in my practical experience not common except on internet message boards where it doesn't matter. And notwithstanding your accusations to the contrary, I can describe alignment coherently. So there must not be issues with alignment after all.

 

[Lanefan]

But you seem to have unusual ideas about what people are saying it is accomplishing. For instance, you're spending a lot of effort saying that it doesn't accomplish the goal of providing a complete description of how a creature behaves, when people aren't saying that. Consider the possibility that people like alignment because it is accomplishing the goals they have for it; they're just not the goals you think they are.

Centaurs, goliaths, firbolgs, bugbears, dwarves, snakes... there are lots of ways creatures can try the definitions of the size categories.

And sometimes different examples of the same creature are different size categories. The largest Bugbears, for example, might shade into Large where most are Medium. Gnolls also straddle the line.

And to answer these specifically for my own game:

Is Orcus an undead or a fiend? --- Neither. He's a (real) deity, and one of the 21 most powerful beings in existence.
Is Juiblex an ooze or a fiend? --- Fiend.
Is Bahamut a dragon or a celestial? --- Neither. He's a (real) deity just like Orcus.
Is a half-dragon a dragon or a humanoid? --- Humanoid, as depicted in most game art.
Is a dryad a plant or a fey? --- Fey. If still connected to a tree, however, the tree is a plant. If inside the tree, the tree is both types at once.
Is a fomorian a fey or a giant? --- Giant.
Is a merrow a giant or a monstrosity? --- No idea, never heard of a merrow.
Is a grick a monstrosity or an aberration? --- Yes. (or, put another way, it doesn't matter)
Is a will-o'-wisp an aberration or an undead? --- Undead.
Is an ankheg a monstrosity or a beast? --- same as Grick, just above.

If someone really wanted to, they could pretty easily launch an attack on the creature type system using your arguments.

But school matters more than alignment does. The wizard subclasses all care about the schools of magic, and the detect magic spell detects school, whereas detect good and evil no longer detects alignment. If "it doesn't matter" is a defense for school, surely it's an even better defense for alignment.

The only time I have to worry about creature type is Rangers or magic items having favoured enemies.

I never worry about magic schools and largely discarded the concept ages ago as redundant. Detect Magic just tells whether something is magic or not, and gives strength of magic for some casters.