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.

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

People seem to be trying apply standards that are not part of the system, and then defending the system based on those standards. And, I'm sorry, but whatever system you've developed over the years of playing the game is not what we are talking about. We are talking about what is in the books.
I think most people are saying it is you who is free-styling an alignment system most of us do not recognize as being consistent with the core books, by developing idiosyncratic interpretations of phrases like "following your conscience" and "having a code of conduct" and then claiming those who challenge your interpretations have somehow departed from the core books while you alone remain true to the text.

I do agree with you on one thing, though. When you say there is no way under your assumptions to distinguish CG from LN, you are absolutely right. And that means alignment serves no useful function in your campaigns.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


"Me / you" = Chaotic
"We / you ones" = Lawful

It is about individualism versus collectivism.

A clan is probably Lawful because each member self-identifies as the clan. The ways of the clan. But could be True, in the sense of the small population of say 50 persons, allowing sensitivity to individual eccentricity and uniqueness thus balancing out the inherently Lawful identity.
 

I don't think any human society functions like alignment if alignment is taken to an extreme. A truly lawful society would be robotic, following a coded script. A completely chaotic society would have no cohesiveness.

That doesn't mean that tribal / small groups can't be chaotic enough for individuals to qualify as chaotic will have no rules or traditions whatsoever. Just that the rules they have will be minimal and value personal freedom. Having traditions does not make someone lawful if the tradition celebrates the individual. Being chaotic doesn't mean you cannot respect someone else's opinions or that you're totally self centered.

People are not machines that are 100% script driven, nor are functional individuals completely random. But this goes back to the idea that alignment is a straightjacket that defines all actions. It's just a moral compass and general inclinations. One of many personality attributes.

All IMHO of course. The book? The book just says alignment serves as a rough moral compass for PCs, a general indication of disposition and behavior for monsters.
 

And, thus, my point is illustrated nicely.

Five different posters, all using the same alignment system, coming to interpretations that are not only different (which is fine) but mutually exclusive (which is not).

People said that it doesn't matter within one group and perhaps that's true. But, it does mean that every player who changes groups has to relearn a potentially completely opposite interpretation of alignment. What alignment means at this table, is completely different from what it means at that table.

And this is a rule that is supposed to simplify description?
 

And, thus, my point is illustrated nicely.

Five different posters, all using the same alignment system, coming to interpretations that are not only different (which is fine) but mutually exclusive (which is not).

People said that it doesn't matter within one group and perhaps that's true. But, it does mean that every player who changes groups has to relearn a potentially completely opposite interpretation of alignment. What alignment means at this table, is completely different from what it means at that table.

And this is a rule that is supposed to simplify description?

In all my years of gaming including running public games I've had exactly 1 person who abused alignment. They wanted to play chaotic insane, and then was upset when the enemies attacked as he "rushed to their side". Of course the guy also literally thought he was a werewolf so there is that.

But other than that? Literally hundreds of players and I've never had anyone get particularly confused about what alignment meant. A few calm discussions here and there? Sure. Just like everything else.

For the most part it never came up. I wouldn't know there was an issue if it wasn't for the internet.
 

And, thus, my point is illustrated nicely.

Five different posters, all using the same alignment system, coming to interpretations that are not only different (which is fine) but mutually exclusive (which is not).

People said that it doesn't matter within one group and perhaps that's true. But, it does mean that every player who changes groups has to relearn a potentially completely opposite interpretation of alignment. What alignment means at this table, is completely different from what it means at that table.

And this is a rule that is supposed to simplify description?

I don't see that as a problem, really. Every new table is essentially a new community, with its own culture, etiquette, interpretation of the rules and possibly house rules. What you describe is a feature of RPGs, not a flaw.

That said, it does seem to imply that alignment is perhaps best applied as an optional rule. Of course that involves lots of little edits, such as detect evil become detect evil intent or detect malice. So I wouldn't see it done until a new edition rolls around.
 

So, it is an arbitrary detail. Great. So, again, alignment doesn't seem to be offering me anything except arbitrary guidelines that I get to determine as the DM.

It's not arbitrary and it's wrong to characterize it that way. I choose with reason, not whim.

So, why do I need them in the book if I am already supposed to decide how lawful "LAwful" is and how chaotic "Chaos" is?

YOU clearly don't. Others do.
 

And, thus, my point is illustrated nicely.

Five different posters, all using the same alignment system, coming to interpretations that are not only different (which is fine) but mutually exclusive (which is not).

People said that it doesn't matter within one group and perhaps that's true. But, it does mean that every player who changes groups has to relearn a potentially completely opposite interpretation of alignment. What alignment means at this table, is completely different from what it means at that table.

And this is a rule that is supposed to simplify description?
It simplifies things for the DM when role playing. That is wholly subjective and it doesn’t matter if my view on Chaotic Neutral is different from the next GMs.

There’s nothing to relearn

It has zero impact on how player characters have to behave, unless they want it too.
 

I don't see that as a problem, really. Every new table is essentially a new community, with its own culture, etiquette, interpretation of the rules and possibly house rules. What you describe is a feature of RPGs, not a flaw.

That said, it does seem to imply that alignment is perhaps best applied as an optional rule. Of course that involves lots of little edits, such as detect evil become detect evil intent or detect malice. So I wouldn't see it done until a new edition rolls around.

Detect alignment doesn't really detect alignment any more. It detects "aberration, celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, or undead"

EDIT: although why they still call it detect alignment is beyond me.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top