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.

 

[Haldrik]

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.

Good point.

Lawful:

Value laws AND respect traditions AND follow a personal code (meaning they do these values even when no one is watching).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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)

"The triggering circumstance can be as general or as detailed as you like, though it must be based on visual or audible Conditions that occur within 30 feet of the object. For example, you could instruct the mouth to speak when any creature moves within 30 feet of the object or when a silver bell rings within 30 feet of it."

No, it is not a valid use of Magic Mouth as 'good' is not a visual or audible condition.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?

That is what the word "or" is for.

You can choose to appear as a creature type (elf) or an alignment (Chaotic Good). But, really the power of this is simple. Take a Succubus. They learn this spell (or have someone cast it for them) now they register as an Angel to any spell effect that tries to detect what they are.

And, in the world you want, creatures do have alignments, so this would still work to cause people to appear as "good" (actually they are evil) or "evil" (actually they are good) and send this entire edifice of using magic to prove someone's alignment crashing down.

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.

The problem I have with what I think you are saying here, is that we therefore don't have definitions. So, in Neutral when it says "is the alignment of those who prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don't take sides, doing what seems best at the time" that simply becomes a list of behaviors. Someone who is neutral might steer clear of morality, and only do what seems best in the moment.

So, would a noble thief who acts for his own pleasure and amusement, saving damsels and robbing them in the same night, who also would fight to the death to save a child, but wave off questions of good and evil with a "pah, that stuff is for scholars, I just want to live a life with no regrets" be neutral or chaotic good.

I can't tell you, he fits both "list of examples" Heck, since he is also helping people and only robbing from the rish who are less harmed by it he can also fit the example of Neutral Good "do the best they can to help others according to their means"

And, with no definitions, and only examples which are far less stringent to meet, we now have multiple examples from multiple categories fitting the same character. So, we are back to square 1

 

[jsaving]

Honestly, my preference would be to get rid of the neutral alignment from the game entirely. If the point of alignment is to give you some idea of what a person values, and the answer is "none of these," then it makes more sense to just call them "unaligned".

Sure, there may be occasional examples of people who love balance for balance's sake, but I'd handle that by treating them as an unaligned person with a personality quirk that causes them to side with the underdog.

 

[Haldrik]

Honestly, my preference would be to get rid of the neutral alignment from the game entirely. If the point of alignment is to give you some idea of what a person values, and the answer is "none of these," then it makes more sense to just call them "unaligned".

Sure, there may be occasional examples of people who love balance for balance's sake, but I'd handle that by treating them as an unaligned person with a personality quirk that causes them to side with the underdog.

I think I agree with you. Remove "Neutral". If they exhibit none of the notable extremes, then they are "unaligned".

It occurs to me, the imaginary alignment to "love balance for balances sake", in the sense of "do something Evil because too much Good has been happening", is probably an example of "Neutral Stupid", similar to how there are unrealistic examples of "Lawful Stupid" and "Chaotic Stupid".

"Unaligned" is probably the better and more self-explanatory term.



To be fair, to seek the "Dao" within the balance between Yang and Yin, is a kind of balance for the sake of balance, in the sense of a third way. It resembles balance between Lawful and Chaotic. Yet, part of the point of Daoism is that the extreme is unsustainable. To have too much Yang (too much Lawful) inherently becomes the seeds of Yin (becomes Chaotic).

The term "unaligned" to mean neither too much Yang nor too much Yin is probably a better description anyway. Because the Dao is dynamic and always in flux, and there is nothing "neutral" about it.

 

[TheSword]

I think I agree with you. Remove "Neutral". If they exhibit none of the notable extremes, then they are "unaligned".

It occurs to me, the imaginary alignment to "love balance for balances sake", in the sense of "do something Evil because too much Good has been happening", is probably an example of "Neutral Stupid", similar to how there are unrealistic examples of "Lawful Stupid" and "Chaotic Stupid".

"Unaligned" is probably the better and more self-explanatory term.



To be fair, to seek the "Dao" within the balance between Yang and Yin, is a kind of balance for the sake of balance, in the sense of a third way. It resembles balance between Lawful and Chaotic. Yet, part of the point of Daoism is that the extreme is unsustainable. To have too much Yang (too much Lawful) inherently becomes the seeds of Yin (becomes Chaotic).

The term "unaligned" to mean neither too much Yang nor too much Yin is probably a better description anyway. Because the Dao is dynamic and always in flux, and there is nothing "neutral" about it.

What is the difference between unaligned and neutral?

if a person is so if a person is obsessed with bureaucracy for the sake of it, they get lost in endless trails of paper and filing. Remote and careless of of the good or harm that happens outside their office are they Lawful Neutral or Lawful Unaligned? I’m not sure it has the same ring to it...

Or are you referring to true neutral as unaligned.

 

[Lanefan]

That is what the word "or" is for.

You can choose to appear as a creature type (elf) or an alignment (Chaotic Good). But, really the power of this is simple. Take a Succubus. They learn this spell (or have someone cast it for them) now they register as an Angel to any spell effect that tries to detect what they are.

Ah.

I read the 'or' to mean "creature type or [creature] alignment", which assumes all creatures of a type are the same alignment.

Nice to see Gygaxian wording issues haven't completely gone away all these years and editions later.

And, in the world you want, creatures do have alignments, so this would still work to cause people to appear as "good" (actually they are evil) or "evil" (actually they are good) and send this entire edifice of using magic to prove someone's alignment crashing down.

Until the Nystul's ran out - it doesn't last forever; and yes, it would make alignment detection less than a sure-shot guarantee and would make some defenses bypassable.

Then again, for my purposes this honestly isn't something I have to worry about as Nystul's doesn't have that effect in my own game. All it does is make a non-magical thing flag as magical if detected for, as an aid to confusion, and it's permanent unless dispelled.

 

[FrogReaver]

IMO. The Lawful/Chaos axis makes the most sense when personal codes are kept out of the equation.

 

[Lanefan]

Honestly, my preference would be to get rid of the neutral alignment from the game entirely. If the point of alignment is to give you some idea of what a person values, and the answer is "none of these," then it makes more sense to just call them "unaligned".

The 'neutral' distinction is very useful in other ways. If ground has been consecrated to a Neutral deity there needs to be a means of telling it apart from any other bit of ground. For creatures, Neutral is a differentiator from No Alignment (a.k.a. Unaligned), which is the lack of pull from something like a small jellyfish whose intellect-as-species hasn't developed enough for one to show any personality difference from the next; or from a rock that someone's cast Know Alignment on in fear it's a Roper.

 

[FrogReaver]

I suppose one could conceive of the law/chaos axis as:

Law - I support the Law (and lawful authorities)
Chaos - I am against the Law (and lawful authorities)
Neutral - I neither support the Law nor am against the Law (and the same goes for lawful authorities)

The thing is, D&D adventurers almost solely by definition (the one above) are nearly always going to be Neutral when it comes to Law and Chaos. So I'm not sure its that meaningful of a definition.

IMO, there is alot of nuance that goes into defining Law and Chaos (and thus Neutral) and most definitions end up pigeonholing nearly every PC and most NPC's in the world into a particular alignment.

I'd propose alignment becomes more descriptive - Lawful - tends to follow the Law. Chaotic - tends to not follow the Law. In this conception neutral would not exist. Unaligned could in order to define animal-like creatures that lack the mental capacity.