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.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I am not sure how "follow conscience" can mean anything other than "follow your conscience", which means that if I am a Chaotic Good character, and I have lines I will not cross (like, no killing kids) then I have a moral code that aligns with my conscience.

If people want to say that Personal Codes have to be pre-written, well, that isn't in the text. Nothing in the text says you code has to be pre-written. And, while we can assume that a CG character, with their rule of "No killing Kids" might run into a situation where their conscience tells them they have to kill a kid... that might be because some other part of the thier code is in conflict with that rule.

Or maybe, a good person who sets a series of personal rules for themselves, like always tip your barkeep, but who doesn't care for tax law is actually LN or LG?

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

Your answer was "Who cares. It's a game. We don't need to go into that much detail."

So, if it is a game, and we aren't supposed to care where the lines are drawn, because that requires too much detail... doesn't that lead to the lines being fairly arbitrary?

Taking the example of a society where polygamy is the expected norm, wouldn't a person who goes for a monogamous relationship, defying the norms of society and living how they want regardless of tradition actually be chaotic and not lawful?

YOU clearly don't. Others do.

Clearly, but they are going to be really upset if the rules do change and alignment is removed. Especially if their argument is simply "well, it is arbitrary and innaccurate, but it works for me because of my personal interpretation"

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.

But does it even help GMs?

If seeing Neutral Evil on a hags statblock is supposed to help me role-play it, but I have a completely different interpretation than a different GM, then the intent of how hags are supposed to be roleplayed is lost. If it is supposed to tell you something about the creature, so that you can roleplay it, then the Designers are trying to communicate with you via that system, and if you can't understand their message, then it is a pointless system.

 

[TheSword]

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.

We take a one line description of alignment. We think about how that might apply to the individual or society that we wish to represent/role play in the game in the circumstances they find it in.

What are these standards you’re talking about?

The alignment inspector isn’t going around checking our interpretation of each alignment is precise enough.

Part of your challenge is that you are trying to be extremely precise about a system that isn’t precise and then claiming it doesn’t work because you’ve found overlaps. Philosophy and ethics are rarely clear cut.

The design team are talking about adding nuanced alignments, not removing it all together. Alignment very much exists in Eberron and Wildemount. It just isnt fixed to race.

I’ve just remembered another very good use of alignment. It gives DMs an insight into why a creature that isn’t lawful or neutral good would still think itself right and moral. No creature thinks it’s the bad guy. Alignment helps explain this.

 

[Oofta]

...
But does it even help GMs?
...

It helps me. It seems to help about 90% of the people that post to these threads. You'd have set up a survey (a real survey, not an EnWorld survey) to know for certain.

 

[TheSword]

Duplicate

 

[TheSword]

But does it even help GMs?

If seeing Neutral Evil on a hags statblock is supposed to help me role-play it, but I have a completely different interpretation than a different GM, then the intent of how hags are supposed to be roleplayed is lost. If it is supposed to tell you something about the creature, so that you can roleplay it, then the Designers are trying to communicate with you via that system, and if you can't understand their message, then it is a pointless system.

i really can’t see your problem. I see neutral evil and think right... a hag isn’t going to be caught up with individual ideologies. It will work with either side of the bloodwar. It’s going to be interested accumulating personal power transactionally. It’s probably linked to the grey wastes, possibly works with Yugoloths. It’s going to be pure evil... evil I can really have fun with.

I get that from two words. Does it matter if you take other inspirations?

If you don’t find the alignment system a source of inspiration I’m not sure what you want me to say to you. You seem intent on trying to prove/win that it can’t be an inspiration for me and other people.

 

[TheSword]

I am not sure how "follow conscience" can mean anything other than "follow your conscience", which means that if I am a Chaotic Good character, and I have lines I will not cross (like, no killing kids) then I have a moral code that aligns with my conscience.

You have a very broad definition of moral code.

Dexter (serial killer) has a series of moral codes drummed into him by his policeman father to justify and control his behaviour. It’s a mantra that he can articulate. He wants to hurt people but the code stops him. People will follow a moral code even when it’s not expedient.

Some people act because they feel that way about something. I don’t lie, it’s a sign of weakness. I don’t like hurting kids its cruel. I don’t want to be tied down to one person.
People want to act that this way, no code is stopping them doing something they don’t already want to do. You don’t need a code to do things you already plan on doing.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Here's a scenario:

1) A government with a clear hierarchy is corrupt and oppressive. Some members follow the law but shape it to their advantage, others break the law when they can get away with it if the law feels too restricting, and others routinely break the law and use various threats to sweep their transgressions under the rug.
2) A leaderless group of individuals who oppose this oppression show up and succeed in changing things.
3) The government is no longer corrupt and all the bad actors have been removed. Some of the people who had been fighting for change are satisfied and resume life as normal, while others seek out other places where people are being oppressed to lend aid.

Personally I'd rule the government in part one as Neutral Evil in aggregate, despite the clear hierarchy. Those who follow the law but shape it to their advantage are Lawful Evil, those who follow it when it's convenient but break it when it's not are Neutral Evil, and the last example is Chaotic Evil (and probably wants to advance to the top of the hierarchy by any means possible to make themself above the law).

The leaderless group of individuals in part two is Chaotic Neutral in aggregate. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to parse all the possible agendas and motivations of the people involved. The results end up being good, though.

In part three the government is Lawful Good. The people who go out seeking new sitiations to get involved in are Chaotic Good. The people who fought for change but are satisfied and not going out to seek new wrongs to right are Neutral in aggregate.


Personally, it makes sense to me that Chaotic Good is the most popular alignment. Adventuring parties are roving bands who upset the status quo when they feel it's what they should do but rarely stick around to create the new status quo. They are agents of change.

 

[Maxperson]

Your answer was "Who cares. It's a game. We don't need to go into that much detail."

So, if it is a game, and we aren't supposed to care where the lines are drawn, because that requires too much detail... doesn't that lead to the lines being fairly arbitrary?

No it doesn't. You don't need every detail in order to base your decision on reason. Arbitrary = whim.

 

[Eric V]

Here's a scenario:

1) A government with a clear hierarchy is corrupt and oppressive. Some members follow the law but shape it to their advantage, others break the law when they can get away with it if the law feels too restricting, and others routinely break the law and use various threats to sweep their transgressions under the rug.
2) A leaderless group of individuals who oppose this oppression show up and succeed in changing things.
3) The government is no longer corrupt and all the bad actors have been removed. Some of the people who had been fighting for change are satisfied and resume life as normal, while others seek out other places where people are being oppressed to lend aid.

Personally I'd rule the government in part one as Neutral Evil in aggregate, despite the clear hierarchy. Those who follow the law but shape it to their advantage are Lawful Evil, those who follow it when it's convenient but break it when it's not are Neutral Evil, and the last example is Chaotic Evil (and probably wants to advance to the top of the hierarchy by any means possible to make themself above the law).

The leaderless group of individuals in part two is Chaotic Neutral in aggregate. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to parse all the possible agendas and motivations of the people involved. The results end up being good, though.

In part three the government is Lawful Good. The people who go out seeking new sitiations to get involved in are Chaotic Good. The people who fought for change but are satisfied and not going out to seek new wrongs to right are Neutral in aggregate.


Personally, it makes sense to me that Chaotic Good is the most popular alignment. Adventuring parties are roving bands who upset the status quo when they feel it's what they should do but rarely stick around to create the new status quo. They are agents of change.

1) The government is Evil and the last example in this number is Chaotic Evil. Shaping laws to one's advantage doesn't make one Lawful; when push comes to shove, LE becomes simply E...NE are just honest about it from the get-go. And so, just have 'Evil.'

2) They're Good if their motives are good. Assuming some form of altruism, they'd be Good. Now, I assume having another adjective in front of 'Good' or 'Evil' means something important; when these individuals are just as likely to overthrow a legit LG government in the name of personal freedom (while not inflicting casualties, because they're Good), then maybe CG might actually exist. Having said that, we really don't see that in any adventure, do we? Overthrown governments are always evil, even if they think themselves good. As it is, the band in 2) could really be any alignment; it would depend upon why they oppose the government.

3) How would the bolded part be described? If there were no LG people who stay behind to build a new structure that protects everyone alike, then haven't the leaderless group of people left the survivors behind in a lurch? Did they accomplish good?

I am also unsurprised that CG is the most popular alignment: It's a fantasy construct to let players feel like the good guys while not thinking too seriously about the consequences of their actions. At that point, might as well just have no alignments. All IMO.

 

[Maxperson]

I am also unsurprised that CG is the most popular alignment: It's a fantasy construct to let players feel like the good guys while not thinking too seriously about the consequences of their actions. At that point, might as well just have no alignments. All IMO.

That's not what CG means, though.