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]

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.

I have expressed my problems with the state of the definition of alignment and the neglect of the concept of alignment in the last several editions of D&D rules. Rules which have mostly failed to address this. This, more than anything else, is why (imho) people have problems with alignment and find it less than useful (along with the growth of character background / backstories that partially substitute for it). People whose experience with alignment goes back further tend to be less critical of it, probably because they are translating ideas from the older editions in their heads to the new one. And change it has, both in definitions and creatures. Witness the ping pong of some creatures alignments and the sometimes contradictory behavioral ideas that have built up around them. We (old geezers like me) are also more familiar and comfortable with the concept of alignment and have done the mental work (or is that gymnastics ) of translating it to our games. The more I think of it, a combination of alignment (including better definitions) with a series of behavioral tags (alignment appropriate ones) would be perhaps the best "short hand" for characters / creatures behavior. You could downsize the size of monster manual entries and leave a bit more of the fluff descriptions to settings / DMs / published adventures. Kidding, so no panic needed

 

[dmgorgon]

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.

To think that the current D&D fan base (those folks who buy all the books) can be excluded for the sake of a "new generation" is a fantasy. That was tried before and it didn't work. Sure some new players will pick up the book in a vacuum, but that small percentage of players will never replace the existing fan base who buy all the toys and books. For this reason, all generations of play are important. A rule set that has many optional rules will cater to the most players and it will be successful. If your group doesn't like something you don't need to use it.

Chances are a new player will at some point encounter a group who uses alignment. It's so wide spread and understood that it won't go away anytime soon. It's part of D&D and it will remain so regardless of what WotC does with 5.5e. The same is true for meta-gaming. Play-styles that frown on meta-gaming it are not going anyplace. The rules can either support the fan base (and its diverse playstyles) or go off in some divergent foray into madness and be largely ignored.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?

Not trying to make people cranky, but as a writer when I tend to go for "It is something mortal minds cannot comprehend" I feels like a cop-out. I'm just saying "And I don't want to explain it, handwavium"

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.

You seem to have meant something with your statement that I didn't get.

Because Newton's laws of physics are something we can understand. You proposed something that we cannot possibly understand.

And, it can't be explained to us. Because, presumably, the gods and other immortal beings can and do understand it, but cannot express it in terms that we mortals can comprehend.

And, it can't be observed. I may not have known Newton's laws of physics, but I could observe their effect. I can drop a leaf and watch the wind carry it until it hits the ground. I can roll a ball and watch what happens. But you can't observe the effect of "good" or "law". We can only tell that the Gods are telling us "this is good, that isn't good"

But, from our perspective, both as players of the game watching the DM, or mortals in the world, it seems like the gods are just making up the rules. There is no objective measure that we can see. So, it would appear identical to a world where the various alignments are more subjective philosophies, and the gods make up their own rules about them.

And, if they appear functionally identical, and the players and the characters cannot learn what the objective truth is... then why not make it subjective.

Especially since then you don't have to have the problem of explaining why two different "Good" dieties/kingdoms ect are squabbling over the right thing to do. There is no objectively right answer, so of course differences in opinion will lead to clashes. I don't need a "well both are objectively right, but you can't understand why and must just accept it" we can treat this exactly like we would in the real-world. As a difference in subjective philosophies.

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.

But if he can't possibly know or understand whether he is right or wrong, what does it matter? You (as a mortal mind that cannot comprehend the truth) can't even prove if he was right or wrong. So, maybe he is actually right and you just don't understand.

I have expressed my problems with the state of the definition of alignment and the neglect of the concept of alignment in the last several editions of D&D rules. Rules which have mostly failed to address this. This, more than anything else, is why (imho) people have problems with alignment and find it less than useful (along with the growth of character background / backstories that partially substitute for it). People whose experience with alignment goes back further tend to be less critical of it, probably because they are translating ideas from the older editions in their heads to the new one. And change it has, both in definitions and creatures. Witness the ping pong of some creatures alignments and the sometimes contradictory behavioral ideas that have built up around them. We (old geezers like me) are also more familiar and comfortable with the concept of alignment and have done the mental work (or is that gymnastics ) of translating it to our games. The more I think of it, a combination of alignment (including better definitions) with a series of behavioral tags (alignment appropriate ones) would be perhaps the best "short hand" for characters / creatures behavior. You could downsize the size of monster manual entries and leave a bit more of the fluff descriptions to settings / DMs / published adventures. Kidding, so no panic needed

Maybe we should, but I know that what we are dealing with isn't helpful for the people who need the help.

You don't need an alignment system. You are still using the rules from 2e that you have adjusted and tailored to fit you for decades. Someone picking up the book today needs help. And instead of trying to define alignment again, since it seems to have never been terribly well defined (and the best defined versions are problematic in a modern context, see "civilization" vs "the wilds" ) it seems better to use a more modern idea of just let people use their ideals, bonds, traits, flaws, and ect.

To think that the current D&D fan base (those folks who buy all the books) can be excluded for the sake of a "new generation" is a fantasy. That was tried before and it didn't work. Sure some new players will pick up the book in a vacuum, but that small percentage of players will never replace the existing fan base who buy all the toys and books. For this reason, all generations of play are important. A rule set that has many optional rules will cater to the most players and it will be successful. If your group doesn't like something you don't need to use it.

Chances are a new player will at some point encounter a group who uses alignment. It's so wide spread and understood that it won't go away anytime soon. It's part of D&D and it will remain so regardless of what WotC does with 5.5e. The same is true for meta-gaming. Play-styles that frown on meta-gaming it are not going anyplace. The rules can either support the fan base (and its diverse playstyles) or go off in some divergent foray into madness and be largely ignored.

This isn't abandoning anyone. You guys don't need the alignment rules in 5e. Or at least R_Chance doesn't. He has stated quite clearly that he is using the 2e alignment system, and doesn't care about what 5e or any 6e might say.

And I think that is the problem with this debate. I'm talking from the perspective of someone who is just using the single page of the 5e PHB and the monster manual.

You guys are responding with letters from Gygax and forty years of history of the game. Which is great for you guys, but I don't have those resources. I don't have 40+ years of gaming history where I've solved all the problems I have. I've got a single (barely) page of the PHB and a lot of nonsense that I've been told makes sense if I just stop and think about it long enough.

And the value of using that system is.... nothing. Really it is not valuable for me at all. And it hasn't been for any player at my table. Or any player I've might online. Well, except one. There was one guy who was real obsessed with alignment. He was from an evil race, but was neutral, so he hated his own people, but he didn't believe in violence, but he kept doing random crap because he was bored... Oh wait, no, there was another. An oathbreaker paladin who hated the gods and was convinced they were more virtous than the gods, and was merciless, cruel and bullied the DM into having an artifact recognize that they were lawful Good.

So, yeah... The only people who cared about alignment, in my expeirence, weren't really the best players. And I'm not even coming close to insinuating that all people who like alignment are like that, but I think it is telling that I've been playing 5e since it came out, and the vast majority of players don't care about alignment. Either they just assume it is there, or they never bother thinking about it, but I've never used it and it has never been something people are like "wait, how will I know if my character follows laws or not?" They just... do it.

And heck, at your own table, you've said that you as the DM will tell your players what their alignment is. So, as a player, I don't need to bother with it at your table either. You'll just tell me what you think I am, and as long as I'm not being killed or maimed for it, what do I care what you label me as?

 

[Maxperson]

But if he can't possibly know or understand whether he is right or wrong, what does it matter? You (as a mortal mind that cannot comprehend the truth) can't even prove if he was right or wrong. So, maybe he is actually right and you just don't understand.

Maybe, but regardless of who is right and who is wrong, there is an objective truth and not a subjective one. When it comes to D&D, the DM is the one who gets to decide those truths.

 

[Aldarc]

what 6 new play-styles are you talking about?

It's just a hypothetical.

 

[Hussar]

Okay, I'll take a stab

Loyal: to whom? Loyalty to friends? Well, that's how people keep friends.
Methodical: They've decided that's the best way to achieve their goals, doesn't affect what those goals are
Careful: same as methodical. CN doesn't mean insane or reckless
Never rash or impulsive: so they like to think things through. CN is their outlook on life, this is behavior. CN does not mean mentally unstable.
Honest: do they have a reason to lie? Are they smart enough to realize they won't get away with it?

To me CN just means you don't see a static order or predefined guiding principles to the universe. You think concepts of order, law, justice, good and evil are concepts made up by narrow minded people. Alignment affects how you view the world and what your goals are not how you achieve those goals.

Chaotic neutral means reckless BY DEFINITION. It's right there in the description of the alignment.

Like I said, if this is CN, then what is LN? If these 5 descriptors define a CN character, then what's left over for my LN character, because obviously, if I'm the opposite alignment, I cannot use the same descriptors.

But, yeah, thank you for so eloquently demonstrating why alignment is a festering pile of garbage.

 

[R_Chance]

Maybe we should, but I know that what we are dealing with isn't helpful for the people who need the help.

You don't need an alignment system. You are still using the rules from 2e that you have adjusted and tailored to fit you for decades. Someone picking up the book today needs help. And instead of trying to define alignment again, since it seems to have never been terribly well defined (and the best defined versions are problematic in a modern context, see "civilization" vs "the wilds" ) it seems better to use a more modern idea of just let people use their ideals, bonds, traits, flaws, and ect.

Actually I go back a lot farther than 2E. I remember someone talking 2E but it wasn't me. I've frankensteined mine together from older editions (1E) and my own ideas as well as articles from Dragon Magazine back in the day. I'm really, really old

I see your point about newer players needing newer ideas. My point is that if their is a 6E (and that's what we're talking about if I remember the start of this thing) it should not be limited to what 5E did, or did not do, well or focused on. I think alignment (done well) could make a contribution for all the new players who will come (hopefully) with the next edition. Then those 4E and 5E veterans can complain about these new kids and their old/new fangled ideas taking up pages

This isn't abandoning anyone. You guys don't need the alignment rules in 5e. Or at least R_Chance doesn't. He has stated quite clearly that he is using the 2e alignment system, and doesn't care about what 5e or any 6e might say.

And I think that is the problem with this debate. I'm talking from the perspective of someone who is just using the single page of the 5e PHB and the monster manual.

Hey! I started with just 3 alignments in the ancient times of the mid 70s. That's why my Lawful Church ended up with every lawful alignment bundled on board And, as I've said the limited (to be polite) treatment of alignment and the neglect of the system is the problem with it. Maybe the next edition will do it justice. Or eliminate it. We just have to wait and see how it goes.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Chaotic neutral means reckless BY DEFINITION. It's right there in the description of the alignment.

There's varying degress of recklessness and motivations for it.

I think one of the greatest unintentional examples of Chaotic Good I've ever seen was in a political argument I followed on another forum. I saved what this individual wrote for inspiration on how a particularly zealous Chaotic Good individual thinks:

"If we fight for something and get it, what if X happens? Better to keep everything as it is and not risk it."

And again, we wonder why nothing ever gets fixed.

We lose 100% of the fights we're too scared to take on, we miss all of the shots we don't take. If you want to sit around and keep asking "what if" because everything might blow up in our faces and decide it's not worth fighting back, then that's your choice. But even if it blows up in our face sometime in the future thanks to whatever or whoever or whyever, we took a stand and did something to try and fix things instead of moping around, thinking everything is terrible and doomed.

We need to fight back even if things get bad or worse in the future.

Using this as a base, you could say characters that are strongly Chaotic and mildly Good are interested in taking actions that they hope will turn out for the best and deemphasizing the risks posed by their actions. People who worry too much about unintended consequences are people who never accomplish anything and let existing suffering persist indefinitely because they're too afraid of what might happen.

A Lawful Good character might argue that a corrupt nobility might need to be reformed through the system or deposed carefully to avoid instability in the region. A particularly zealous Chaotic Good individual wants the nobility thrown out on their ass ASAP, rules and regulations be damned, and all their ill-gotten gains redistributed, a "rip the band-aid off" approach. If this leads to negative consequences they'll just come back and take down whatever new threats arise.

 

[Oofta]

Chaotic neutral means reckless BY DEFINITION. It's right there in the description of the alignment.

Like I said, if this is CN, then what is LN? If these 5 descriptors define a CN character, then what's left over for my LN character, because obviously, if I'm the opposite alignment, I cannot use the same descriptors.

But, yeah, thank you for so eloquently demonstrating why alignment is a festering pile of garbage.

Oh well. You used ALL CAPS so it must be true. Thanks for the indepth analysis.

The book doesn't say anything about CN being reckless. I'd say recklessness was a personality trait or flaw that could apply to anyone. The law abiding good guy recklessly putting themselves in harms way is a pretty common trope.

I'd quote the book for you (which, again, doesn't mention recklessness) but obviously you don't care. You don't want a discussion, you just want to yell and dump on anyone who doesn't agree with you. Have a good one.

 

[Maxperson]

But, yeah, thank you for so eloquently demonstrating why alignment is a festering pile of garbage.

Yeesssss! Let the hate blind you! Hate clouds your judgment. Leads to fear. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to the dark side. Complete your training and join the Empire as my right hand!