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


log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
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.
Passwords and-or keys only work if I know or have contact with everyone who might pass through. Doesn't help when dealing with strangers.

Exception lists ditto, plus they don't meet the very-few-words criteria I'm after.

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.
All possibly true, but that shouldn't stop the priestess from trying. :)

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?
Low-level warfare, in cases where the temples are opposed alignments.

If I'm running an Evil and-or Chaotic temple and I know there's an opposing Temple of Sweetly Boring Goodness uptown, I'm going to do my best to mess their shat up. If I'm Chaotic it'll be pranks, tricks, creative vandalism; if I'm Evil it'll be theft, disruption, destructive vandalism; and in all cases designed to belittle that temple and-or its deity while preferably not getting caught.

They in turn will quite reasonably want to defend against me without having to have armed people there 24-7. Alignment-based glyphs and other spells can achieve this, and I-as-DM have no problem with that.

And that opens up having alignment-based spells defending Evil places, which is (often) far more relevant in adventuring.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
The only thing I’ve said is that not following any laws isn’t chaotic in the least. It’s one of the more principled things you can do.
One can be both principled and Chaotic - they're not connected.

I wonder if you're bringing a bit of 0e thinking and equating Chaotic with Evil?
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Yeah, that's kinda the point. You need to use your own moral judgement like in the real life (or in any even remotely passable fiction.)
Fine if I'm there at the time. Not much use if I'm somewhere else.

Magic Mouth: tell the first Good person that passes "I, Denari, am following Orcs north; go to castle and send troops". Tell me that's not a perfectly valid use of Magic Mouth. (I might have the word count wrong by RAW; my game allows a 12-word message)

And there's many examples in fiction where Good people feel uncomfortable because (knowingly or not) they've stumbled into Evil-consecrated ground; the only difference being the words Good and Evil are replaced with whatever names suit that story.
 

Mecheon

Sacabambaspis
Magic Mouth: tell the first Good person that passes "I, Denari, am following Orcs north; go to castle and send troops". Tell me that's not a perfectly valid use of Magic Mouth. (I might have the word count wrong by RAW; my game allows a 12-word message)
Magic Mouths are not judges or arbiters of moral behavior. I'd flat-out say it has no way to detect who clarifies as good so its just gonna... Tell everyone who passes

Moral absolutism is a stupid idea. Evil people do not consider themselves evil and justify bad things in reasons that can sound good the first time you listen to them. Frankly, it is unrealistic to even have the whole "Team Evil vs Team Good" that D&D has had in the past, and part of the reason I basically dump on a certain setting that uses it a lot, cough cough Dragonlance cough.

To go more specific, let's get a good ol' example from actual fiction because I've been playing and streaming a lot of Final Fantasy 14 lately, and the original Final Fantasy is unquestionably D&D inspired to heck. There's a character in this game. His world has been mostly destroyed by an overwhelming flood of light. Turns out, only way he can save it? By causing all sorts of chaos on another world, causing an event that'll hopefully cause these two worlds to merge together. These events will kill hundreds, thousands, on this world he's just picked at random. But.... If he doesn't do it? Then his world, the world he grew up on, the world full of people he knows? Each and every single person will die

So, is this character good or evil? Or, is it complicated and trying to slap him with either a "Good" or "Evil" label an exercise in frustration?
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Holy water doesn't burn thieves but walking on Good-consecrated ground should make Evil people (not just thieves) uncomfortable.

Can't happen if there's no way of knowing who the Evil people are.


Again, this leads to either boring plots, or "tyrannical" systems.

For example, let us enchant this stone, using your magic mouth example, to say "Execute Me!" whenever it is held by an evil person. Now, you have a guy who is on trial. Doesn't matter for what. Make him hold the stone. If it registers his as evil? Kill him. Or put him in prison for the rest of his life. Or chain gang for forced labor.

He is evil, so he obviously committed some crime, or would commit a crime. We know, objectively, that he is evil. There is no debate to be had, no argument he can make. He is evil, and since alignment is based off actions, he has likely broken the laws.


And all of this, every bit of it, also ignores a single spell that still exists, and every powerful evil being in the universe would want to learn.

Nystul's Magic Aura.

Which I have used on multiple occasions. And renders all of these systems horrifically exploitable by a bad guy with a single brain cell.
 

Hussar

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.
/snip

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.

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.

Sounds chaotic to me.

I'm sorry, but the irony here is just too funny. That's delicious.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Again, this leads to either boring plots, or "tyrannical" systems.

For example, let us enchant this stone, using your magic mouth example, to say "Execute Me!" whenever it is held by an evil person. Now, you have a guy who is on trial. Doesn't matter for what. Make him hold the stone. If it registers his as evil? Kill him. Or put him in prison for the rest of his life. Or chain gang for forced labor.

He is evil, so he obviously committed some crime, or would commit a crime. We know, objectively, that he is evil. There is no debate to be had, no argument he can make. He is evil, and since alignment is based off actions, he has likely broken the laws.


And all of this, every bit of it, also ignores a single spell that still exists, and every powerful evil being in the universe would want to learn.

Nystul's Magic Aura.

Which I have used on multiple occasions. And renders all of these systems horrifically exploitable by a bad guy with a single brain cell.
I must be missing something here - how does Nystul's Magic Aura give or remove an alignment from anything?

There's a higher-level spell in 1e called Obscurement which gives faulty readings when alignment is tested, are you thinking of this?
 

Magic Mouths are not judges or arbiters of moral behavior. I'd flat-out say it has no way to detect who clarifies as good so its just gonna... Tell everyone who passes

Moral absolutism is a stupid idea. Evil people do not consider themselves evil and justify bad things in reasons that can sound good the first time you listen to them. Frankly, it is unrealistic to even have the whole "Team Evil vs Team Good" that D&D has had in the past, and part of the reason I basically dump on a certain setting that uses it a lot, cough cough Dragonlance cough.

You have fallen into the real world trap of thinking "Evil is wrong", that's how we think, but... not in D&D. In D&D Good and Evil are two ways of looking at the world. They both think they are "right" and the other is "wrong". So, you can be Evil, and think those Good fools are just wrong. After all, Might makes Right! No problem with Team Good vs. Team Evil in this game :D


To go more specific, let's get a good ol' example from actual fiction because I've been playing and streaming a lot of Final Fantasy 14 lately, and the original Final Fantasy is unquestionably D&D inspired to heck. There's a character in this game. His world has been mostly destroyed by an overwhelming flood of light. Turns out, only way he can save it? By causing all sorts of chaos on another world, causing an event that'll hopefully cause these two worlds to merge together. These events will kill hundreds, thousands, on this world he's just picked at random. But.... If he doesn't do it? Then his world, the world he grew up on, the world full of people he knows? Each and every single person will die

Sucks to be them. Their DM must be a di.... er, not nice. Or, maybe Evil? :)

So, is this character good or evil? Or, is it complicated and trying to slap him with either a "Good" or "Evil" label an exercise in frustration?

The Character might be Good or Evil. Or Neutral on that spectrum. The act however is Evil. He has chosen to kill hundreds of thousands. The Character might consider it a "necessary evil", but yeah, Evil. There is nothing inherently wrong in his choice if he kills those innocents, but it is Evil. And this Character might have no "Good" choices. He has to bite the bullet and choose.

That help? :D

edit I am having an issue today with quotes. Sorry for any confusion, I think it's fixed...
 
Last edited:


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top