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.

 

[R_Chance]

This issue is stemming from the position of @R_Chance who began talking about objective "good" and objective "law" coming from Divine Law.

I proposed a reason that their could be a divine background to alignment in a post at a point in the thread when the subjective nature of alignment was being expounded on as a reason why alignment was flawed. I also proposed (in later posts) differences between lawful gods over it and used some of my own setting elements as examples. You brought up a single objective interpretation and logic into it. Assuming that (I assume you believed this anyway ) that all objective divine interpretations would be the same. You stated that an LG god would not allow for differences that caused conflict among their own worshippers. I gave you that one (good being good) and asked what about two lawful good deities, or other alignments and you stated you were only talking LG and other alignments were not in the discussion. I believe I also stated (? to you or another poster) that I didn't think gods were all knowing omniscient beings in D&D. And that there could be reasons for difference and conflict. @Umbran mentioned much the same thing.

I'm enjoying this discussion, but it has drug on for over 70 pages now. It's getting hard to keep track of all the opinions and posts. I for one, do not have the time to go back through dozens of posts hunting for a specific bit someone posted. I am working on my game (the pandemic has certainly been good for my prep time) and my classes for the Fall 2020 Semester which have all gone on line. We are using Canvas now which, as an instructor, to be honest I find to be a pain...

 

[Mecheon]

That's funny because the 2e book I quoted explicitly stated that alignment was not a straitjacket. So if that's the way it was being played at your table then it was being played incorrectly. At least you admit that that.

I wouldn't even say its the table though, it was 3E full stop. Yeah, 2E has its alignment things but uh, delve into 3E's stuff. Or Dragonlance. And then there's BoVD and BoED which were.... Well. They sure Were.

Now do I think that Paladins should be LG only and Assassins should be evil. Absolutely.

On the other hand, I'd argue that limits you. What about the paladin who thinks he's doing the right thing until the very end, where it corrupts him? Or the paladin who believes the law's failed him, he's given up on his order but still tries to fight the good fight as best as he can? As for good assassins... Well, that's where two popular video game franchises in Assassin's Creed and Hitman alone provide enough example of the opposite, as Agent 47 at least I'd be ascribing the more Lawful Neutral side of things without a doubt

 

[Lanefan]

If a hypothetical 6e excludes two old playstyles, but opens up six more new playstyles, is it less inclusive just because yours was the one excluded?

Yes.

Ideally it should find a way of handling all eight.

 

[MGibster]

I like alignment, I really do. But for my current campaign I haven't even bothered asking any of my players what their alignments are because it doesn't seem to matter much during game play. I'm pretty much ready to just accept that alignment isn't meaningful to most players I run into these days.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The point is that even if you don't follow your character's alignment, the DM can evaluate what alignment your character is based on his/her actions. That's because each set of actions can be attributed to an alignment component.

And if you say you are playing your alignment, and the DM disagrees with you... what then? I have disagreed with almost half of the alignment definitions I've seen on this thread. So, that would lead to this exact scenario where I'm playing my interpretation of the alignment, and then the DM tells me I'm a different alignment.

Do I argue with them over moral philosophy? I've had a few posters on this thread tell me that not writing an alignment is fine, but I better watch out if I encounter certain monsters or magic items, because they will know my "true" alignment and cause me problems, so this isn't something I can just ignore.

And if it is something I can just ignore, then why does the DM care enough to take control of my character sheet and rewrite it?

No, it's more like if you saw LG on your character sheet wouldn't rob from the rich to give to the poor. You wouldn't break the law, but if you are CG you probably would. On the other hand, if you saw CE you just might. Alignment is a great way to jump into a character someone just handed to you. It get's the job done by providing a guide on how to role play that character.

Says who? Breaking the law can get you in serious trouble, too much of a hassle, much easier to do things the legal way.

Also, LG guy would like to talk to you about that tax evasion we found in your letters, he feels that you owe the state quite a bit.


And the DM is free to alter those actions to fit whatever box he deems necessary, I guess.

Don't get me wrong, I do care what the rules say. I mostly play 2e and some 5e. I posted previously some of the rules on alignment are for 2e. And I do believe my group is following them. Now, 5e isn't bad, but at least it keeps alignment in the game. If another edition takes it away, that's fine, my group won't play that edition.

In other words, D&D isn't what WotC says it is. It's actually a large collection of playstyles that have evolved over the decades. If a particular edition excludes my play-style, that's fine it's just a less inclusive edition of the game.

Right, you don't care about the rules of 5e. You care about the rules of 2e.

Which again, great for you and your playstyle developed over decades. But for the player who discovered DnD last month, and decided to DM with his buddies, 2e and your decades of expeirence are nearly meaningless. They have the 5e PHB and the rules within it.

I proposed a reason that their could be a divine background to alignment in a post at a point in the thread when the subjective nature of alignment was being expounded on as a reason why alignment was flawed. I also proposed (in later posts) differences between lawful gods over it and used some of my own setting elements as examples. You brought up a single objective interpretation and logic into it. Assuming that (I assume you believed this anyway ) that all objective divine interpretations would be the same. You stated that an LG god would not allow for differences that caused conflict among their own worshippers. I gave you that one (good being good) and asked what about two lawful good deities, or other alignments and you stated you were only talking LG and other alignments were not in the discussion. I believe I also stated (? to you or another poster) that I didn't think gods were all knowing omniscient beings in D&D. And that there could be reasons for difference and conflict. @Umbran mentioned much the same thing.

I'm enjoying this discussion, but it has drug on for over 70 pages now. It's getting hard to keep track of all the opinions and posts. I for one, do not have the time to go back through dozens of posts hunting for a specific bit someone posted. I am working on my game (the pandemic has certainly been good for my prep time) and my classes for the Fall 2020 Semester which have all gone on line. We are using Canvas now which, as an instructor, to be honest I find to be a pain...

It sounds like we have had some miscommunication then, because if you were basing your response on the idea that alignment within the world of DnD being subjective was the problem, that is not the problem.


The problem is that alignment is subjective and poorly defined in our universe, as the game rules, where we have to try and take this vague grouping of ideas and apply them as objective truths to the universe, but still keep the tropes and conflicts that come about from subjective points of view in the real world.

There are the problems I listed with objective truths that are clearly knowable in the DnD worlds, but in our world the problem is that the alignment system is contradictory and applies equally validly to dozens of set-ups, making it nearly useless as a definitional tool.

 

[Umbran]

1) "Not explainable to mortal minds" is generally a cop-out.

No. It is a choice of metaphysics.

Unless you want to claim the ability to read minds, you do not know why people make a choice unless they tell you explicitly. Please do not tell people why they do things - they get cranky, especially when you make it uncomplimentary.

And you don't want to make people cranky, do you?

Especially since it means that mortals cannot possibly understand objective law and objective good, meaning they are essentially living in a subjective reality.

So, there was a time when you did not know Newton's Laws of Motion. You could not, at that time, accurately predict the motion of objects, in general - you could have a decent idea of some special cases with which you have a lot of personal experience (like, say, playing catch), and have some general ideas of broad trends, but no way to predict in accuracy or detail.

Did you assume that the movements of items had no objective reality behind them? Or did you figure there were some rules you didn't know?

I expect that the result of not understanding the rules probably would not look like subjective, unless you were very lucky. if the rules are subjective, you merely have to find the point of view for each case, and they become understandable. Subjective systems are still understandable.

In all likelihood, in a world where mortals could not fully grasp the rules, there would be times (more or less frequent, depending on the rules) where they'd look arbitrary.

 

[Maxperson]

Things being 'ineffably objectively lawful' is in practical terms exactly the same situation than lawfulness being subjective.

No it's not. Subjective alignment means that what is good or evil is in the eye of the person committing the acts. Objective, but ineffable means that there is an objective good and evil, but the person committing the acts doesn't know about it. The former doesn't allow for the person committing the acts to be wrong. All that matters is his subjective views on the matter. The latter does allow for him to be wrong. For example can THINK he's being good, when in fact he's acting in an evil manner.

 

[Maxperson]

What is good? What is evil?

Is murdering 1 person to save 1,000,000 lives good or evil?

Can't it be both. You have basically two acts there. The first is a murder(evil). The second is saving 1,000,000 lives(good).

 

[Maxperson]

Considering how debatable this point has been for decades, I'm not sure if the answer is simple. Overly simplistic? Yes. Simple? No. And the idea that alignment is "a more...useful abstraction" would definitely require some extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim.

It is pretty simple. I think you're underestimating humanity's ability to complicate simplicity.

 

[dmgorgon]

If a hypothetical 6e excludes two old playstyles, but opens up six more new playstyles, is it less inclusive just because yours was the one excluded?

what 6 new play-styles are you talking about?