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

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.
'Follows the law' is fundamentally a dumb definition. What law? Whose law? It may work in context of a setting where there are roughly similar laws everywhere and for everyone but that's never the case.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Mecheon

Sacabambaspis
'Follows the law' is fundamentally a dumb definition. What law? Whose law? It may work in context of a setting where there are roughly similar laws everywhere and for everyone but that's never the case.
Yup.

Hell, you can easily have a Lawful Good paladin who helps overthrow societies and works on changing their laws because they're corrupt laws that are hurting people.

Alignment has always just been clunky. We don't need it, as 4E showed, and hell, Eberron showed it was basically limiting stories. Have it as your initial character concept thing and then ditch
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
'Follows the law' is fundamentally a dumb definition. What law? Whose law? It may work in context of a setting where there are roughly similar laws everywhere and for everyone but that's never the case.

The laws of the culture/people/kingdom/empire that the DM determines will be considered lawful.
 


dmgorgon

Explorer
It sounds like all the haters of things D&D are out in full force again. Didn't we already endure an entire edition of "Fix it all"?
Apparently, that wasn't enough though, so lets just burn it all down and make 6e "a product of your non-offensive imagination"

Thankfully, all the 5e core rules books have already been printed.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
So it is an utterly arbitrary and meaningless definition. Good job.
Not at all.

For that DM's table it's the definition in use; and that DM doesn't (likely) have to worry about the definitions in use at any other table.

Far more important is that any given DM be consistent iwith her definitions and applications thereof.
 


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.

So your problem is that you don't have 100% perfect mind-reading magic that shuts down a huge variety of plots (such as a traitor in the ranks). Personally I think that the game is better without this sort of magic at any sort of accessible level.
 

Not arbitrary at all. Determined by the dm is not arbitrary. Though it certainly could be.
So one nation on the setting just happen to have objectively lawful laws and people obeying them are lawful? People in another nation with different laws however are chaotic, because those are wrong laws (somehow.) For any observer in the setting both sets of people seem to be perfect law-abiding citizens, yet ones are objectively lawful and other are not. This is patently absurd.

Also, if the first nation changes their laws are those new laws still lawful? And if not does it mean that people there now become chaotic if they continue to behave like they always had and follow these laws? Or can this one nation dictate what is objectively lawful so by changing their laws they change what is lawful? If so, if they change their laws to be similar to those of that other kingdom, do people there now become lawful even they follow the same laws that they always have, as they now functionally also follow the laws of the lawful nation?
 

So one nation on the setting just happen to have objectively lawful laws and people obeying them are lawful? People in another nation with different laws however are chaotic, because those are wrong laws (somehow.) For any observer in the setting both sets of people seem to be perfect law-abiding citizens, yet ones are objectively lawful and other are not. This is patently absurd.

Well, what if "lawful" has a religious basis? What if their laws are an attempt to embody divine Laws?

In a D&D setting a nation adopting a code of laws (small "L") are probably basing them on a divine set of Lawful (big "L") precepts. There could be variation between the laws of two ostensibly lawful nations, but that probably comes down to different interpretations of the divine Laws. Nothing mortal is perfect, not even their interpretation of the (divine) Laws :D None of which has anything to do with Good, Evil, or Neutrality on the morality axis :)


Also, if the first nation changes their laws are those new laws still lawful? And if not does it mean that people there now become chaotic if they continue to behave like they always had and follow these laws? Or can this one nation dictate what is objectively lawful so by changing their laws they change what is lawful? If so, if they change their laws to be similar to those of that other kingdom, do people there now become lawful even they follow the same laws that they always have, as they now functionally also follow the laws of the lawful nation?

Ahem, what is lawful is not subject to human quibbles. did I sound sufficiently snooty in that line? It's about divine Law. If you change your laws you might actually become less lawful... or more. In the big "L" sense. I hate to bring real life into a discussion of fantasy... but if you want an IRL example look at the three Abrahamic western religions; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. They all have the same core principles (i.e. the ten Commandments among other bits). That hasn't stopped them from differing in interpretation, having varying legal codes, and occasionally butchering each other. Or having schisms and internally butchering each other. Yet I would suggest all three of these religions are "Lawful", whatever you might think of their behavior, and the nations which have based their ideas / codes of law on them think they are "lawful".

Of course, that's in real life. You might think gods in a fantasy setting would be pickier than this. Or would they just work with what they've got?

My apologies if my dragging out real life religion has offended anyone. That was not my intention. My assumptions about divinity / the gods in my D&D setting has its parameters set by real life examples. Odd, considering real life science has no function in that same setting :D
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top