• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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...

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

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I don't think creature types should have objective moral identities either.
Then what general one- or two-word criteria can I use to determine who gets past my Glyph and who doesn't?

By your definition I can't use alignment. I can't use creature type - I might want the Orc PC to get in but not any other Orcs. I can't use class or level and never could. What's left?

She's neutral, not evil.
Neutral isn't the same as Not Terribly Evil. :) For NTE I'd notate it as Ne, with the little-e indicating evil tendencies but not evil enough to capitalize it.

To me it feel utterly absurd that spells affecting 'evil' or 'good' would have any impact on normal people. Wards against supernatural entities makes sense, wards against somewhat morally compromised hobbits and humans makes no sense at all.
Why?

'Normal' people are who you need them to work on! If I'm a village priestess looking to defend my temple I'm probably not very concerned about supernatural entities getting in* but I'm sure as hell concerned about the nasty local Thieves trying to steal the donations kitty; and that's who I want to defend against and - if possible - catch. And if there's a competing temple of opposed ethics to mine in town I want to defend against them too, just as I'd expect them to defend against me.

* - or if I am, I've got problems beyond my pay grade!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Then what general one- or two-word criteria can I use to determine who gets past my Glyph and who doesn't?

By your definition I can't use alignment. I can't use creature type - I might want the Orc PC to get in but not any other Orcs. I can't use class or level and never could. What's left?
You can use creature type. It just works equally on the Vampire Prince Vlad the Unfathomably Terrible (ie. evil vampire) and Liza, the Not-Terribly-Evil (ie. neutral vampire.) You can't use it to test whether Eduardo the Sparkling is actually a decent vampire and totally is not gonna eat you like he claims.


Because it is thematically stupid and dramatically boring.

'Normal' people are who you need them to work on! If I'm a village priestess looking to defend my temple I'm probably not very concerned about supernatural entities getting in* but I'm sure as hell concerned about the nasty local Thieves trying to steal the donations kitty; and that's who I want to defend against and - if possible - catch. And if there's a competing temple of opposed ethics to mine in town I want to defend against them too, just as I'd expect them to defend against me.

* - or if I am, I've got problems beyond my pay grade!
Guards, traps and watchdogs are the appropriate defences against thieves, the holy ground against devils and vampires. This is thematically coherent. Basically in no media ever anyone uses holy water to burn thieves (unless the thieves are also vampires.)
 
Last edited:

Then what general one- or two-word criteria can I use to determine who gets past my Glyph and who doesn't?

By your definition I can't use alignment. I can't use creature type - I might want the Orc PC to get in but not any other Orcs. I can't use class or level and never could. What's left?

A password, a key, or an exception list? In short something like people use in the real world rather than a spell that looks into peoples' hearts. And these are all much more interesting because they are much better to interact with.

If I'm a village priestess looking to defend my temple I'm probably not very concerned about supernatural entities getting in* but I'm sure as hell concerned about the nasty local Thieves trying to steal the donations kitty; and that's who I want to defend against

In which case I can just do what low end merchants do to protect their kitties - after all merchants probably have more worth stealing.

Second alignment wards that don't block neutral people will not block a significant subset of thieves. Alignment doesn't work the way Javert wanted it to; stealing for survival doesn't make you evil. If any substantial number of people start using alignment wards then there will be specialities within the thieves' guild to get round them.

And if there's a competing temple of opposed ethics to mine in town I want to defend against them too, just as I'd expect them to defend against me.

Defend how? Are we each having a preach-off at the opposite end of the town square? Have we set opposed coffee mornings? Or is this low level warfare?

Also as a priest of Sigmar why do you think that I'm going to have more trouble with the peiwar od church of Shallya the healer who has this ridiculous notion of healing our enemies as well as our friends and whose priests are sworn never to shed blood thus making them unable to protect those they care for than I am the local branch of the Church of Ulric that basically believes almost all the same things I do (Sigmar, when he walked the earth, was himself a follower of Ulric) but really doesn't like the competition?
 

Remathilis

Legend
Then what general one- or two-word criteria can I use to determine who gets past my Glyph and who doesn't?

By your definition I can't use alignment. I can't use creature type - I might want the Orc PC to get in but not any other Orcs. I can't use class or level and never could. What's left?

If they have been trying to reach you about your carts extended warranty?
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I don’t believe there is a neutral state between law and chaos. Either you uphold the law nearly always or you don’t. If you don’t then you are chaotic because chaos is the absence of the law.

I believe There is a neutral between good and evil though. The neutral there would imply neutral acts or possibly a balance between good and evil ones.
 

I don’t believe there is a neutral state between law and chaos. Either you uphold the law nearly always or you don’t. If you don’t then you are chaotic because chaos is the absence of the law.
Nah. Many people might believe in general principles of the law and follow laws that they consider important for the society but not those they consider inconsequential red tape.
 

TheSword

Legend
One thing I have noticed of late is that there is less space in the world of neutrality. There has been polarization of arguments into for us and against us. if you aren’t good, then you are evil. That can go for a large number of debates on here too in the last couple of months.

Neutrality - having a moderate approach can either be that you just don’t care enough. Or it can be that you you chart a more balanced path.

Most of the characters I play tend to be Neutral Good. I generally follow the law, but I would equally work outside the law if it was important (to do something good). I’d steal something if it would do good and I’d break someone out if they were falsely imprisoned.

Blanket statements, “this is chaotic” or “that is lawful” are subjective based on DM/Player viewpoint. Better to say “this is more chaotic than that” and so we get a spectrum. following a written code is more lawful than an unwritten one. A loose moral code less lawful than a strict one. Etc. move away from prescriptive definitions to descriptive ones.

Each table will have a slightly different Overton Window on where neutrality lies and where the extremes begin. That’s good. It allows each DM/Table to set their own standard of good/evil/law/chaos with guidance from published materials.
 


Sounds chaotic to me.
Sounds like a normal person to me. Normal people do not treat laws as absolutes nor do they think that all laws are equally important. If your moral system cannot distinguish between a person who doesn't think that jaywalking or pirating a PDF is a big deal and a full blown radical anarchist, then I don't think it is a very good system.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
One thing I have noticed of late is that there is less space in the world of neutrality. There has been polarization of arguments into for us and against us. if you aren’t good, then you are evil. That can go for a large number of debates on here too in the last couple of months.

Neutrality - having a moderate approach can either be that you just don’t care enough. Or it can be that you you chart a more balanced path.

Most of the characters I play tend to be Neutral Good. I generally follow the law, but I would equally work outside the law if it was important (to do something good). I’d steal something if it would do good and I’d break someone out if they were falsely imprisoned.

Blanket statements, “this is chaotic” or “that is lawful” are subjective based on DM/Player viewpoint. Better to say “this is more chaotic than that” and so we get a spectrum. following a written code is more lawful than an unwritten one. A loose moral code less lawful than a strict one. Etc. move away from prescriptive definitions to descriptive ones.

Each table will have a slightly different Overton Window on where neutrality lies and where the extremes begin. That’s good. It allows each DM/Table to set their own standard of good/evil/law/chaos with guidance from published materials.

The concept of neutral between law and chaos doesn’t make any sense. Let me explain:

Let A = mostly following the law, let B=Mostly never following the law. Let C=following the law 50% of the time and not following the law 50% of the time, give or take a little.

On a law, neutral, chaos slide - A is lawful. B is chaotic. C is neutral. But isn’t C actually the definition of chaos? Whereas B is the definition of anaracy (law of lawlessness).

Thus the idea of a neutral between law and chaos is self defeating. Once it’s introduced the neutral becomes the chaotic and it’s surrounded on both sides by lawful (or code based) behavior.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top