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.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Of course there are more than 2. I didn’t say there were only 2

My bad, I must have misunderstood when you said this above:

Maybe we need to start a step further back.

There are 2 theories of lawful. One is based on society. The other is based on individual codes of conduct.

 

[Oofta]

It's incoherent, but correct as in that's what the book says.

Seems perfectly coherent to me. Feel free to make your own version of alignment for your game, but it's different from what the book says.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Seems perfectly coherent to me. Feel free to make your own version of alignment for your game, but it's different from what the book says.

Firstly, it's incoherent in that LN can be defined by following your personal desires and wants and CN can be defined as following your personal desires and want. I mean, yes, following your own personal code is a coherent thing to do, but it's doesn't belong in that list if that list is to mean anything. I can define anything I want as a personal code -- it's personal. It could even be as simple as "I do what makes me happy." Viola, personal code. Yes, it can be more complex, but nothing in that description gives rise to any such need -- that's extra baggage the player or GM brings. It's not necessary to the definition as presented and expanded upon. Hence, incoherent.

As for your second sentence, as I did not present my alignment interpretation as RAW, and expressly called it out as my own, I fail to understand what value you believe you're adding here by telling me what I already know and do not need your permission to do.

 

[Haldrik]

Seems perfectly coherent to me. Feel free to make your own version of alignment for your game, but it's different from what the book says.

I find the word "personal" to be jarring in the phrase "personal code", for Lawful. Perhaps they were trying to include include the flavor of a Paladin oath, but the Paladin no longer needs to be Lawful alignment, so the confusion seemed unnecessary.

 

[Maxperson]

It's incoherent, but correct as in that's what the book says.

Gygax also said that in one of the Q&A threads.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I find the word "personal" to be jarring in the phrase "personal code", for Lawful. Perhaps they were trying to include include the flavor of a Paladin oath, but the Paladin no longer needs to be Lawful alignment, so the confusion seemed unnecessary.

Well, and there's the bit where you swear an oath to something, so it's not personal.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?

Nope, level 2 Nystul's Magic Aura gives the "Mask" option. The last sentence reads "You choose a creature type and other spells and magical effects treat the target as it it were a creature of that type or of that alignment."

And if the spell is cast on the same target, in the same way, for 30 days it lasts until dispelled.


I try very hard not to use it too much, but frankly, 30 days is nothing to an immortal, and becoming immune to divine sense or the triggering of a Symbol spell (both specifically called out) is very very powerful.

 

[Haldrik]

I find the word "personal" to be jarring in the phrase "personal code", for Lawful. Perhaps they were trying to include include the flavor of a Paladin oath, but the Paladin no longer needs to be Lawful alignment, so the confusion seemed unnecessary.

Well, and there's the bit where you swear an oath to something, so it's not personal.

Yeah. Swearing an oath to a religious order (order!) is all about adopting a group identity. Lawful alignment.

 

[jsaving]

I find the word "personal" to be jarring in the phrase "personal code", for Lawful.

Yeah, me too. However it is worth pointing out that 5e goes a different route than editions past in that it first defines good/evil/law/chaos and then provides examples of the sorts of behavior you could expect from the nine alignments. The definition part says:

"Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral)."

Then in the "typical behaviors" part it says you'll see LNs acting in accordance with laws, traditions, or personal codes. Where people sometimes go wrong is in interpreting this list as a "definition" for LN, which it is not, instead of a list of behaviors LNs would typically display because they value society and order, which it is.

Why does that matter? Well, if you misconstrue the list as a definition for LN instead of typical behaviors you'd see from LN people, then it might seem like you can qualify as LN if you either value laws OR respect tradition OR follow a personal code. Going that route leads to a muddled mess and endless arguments about whether someone who, say, takes Lolth's ethos as their personal code is LN simply because they have a code. Whereas if you take the LN writeup as a list of typical behaviors that flow from respecting society and order, then you see immediately that following Lolth's guidebook is CE. Even though the action of holding a guidebook would more commonly be associated with LNs, holding a guidebook doesn't make you LN any more than the act of coughing -- a typical symptom of a cold -- means you have a cold.

 

[Lanefan]

Nope, level 2 Nystul's Magic Aura gives the "Mask" option. The last sentence reads "You choose a creature type and other spells and magical effects treat the target as it it were a creature of that type or of that alignment."

And if the spell is cast on the same target, in the same way, for 30 days it lasts until dispelled.

That's not going to fly once they take generic or societal alignment away from creatures as it seems they're en route to doing e.g. Orcs no longer pre-defined as Evil.

This is because you're choosing an entire creature type rather than a specific individual creature, whose alignment you could copy. So sure, your Vampire could make the world think it's an Elf but as Elves don't have a common alignment what are you mimicking?