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.

 

[TheSword]

The same issue applies to NPCs as well. We just covered this. Knowing NPCs does not let us know whether they would keep their word. They could be chaotic yet behave like Oofta's barbarian. Or they could be lawful, but would break their word because they were interested in upholding actual laws of the country instead of being personally trustworthy.

Alignment is not an useful descriptor or predictor of behaviour or values. I really don't understand how anyone can look all these debates of what constitutes what aliment and justifications of any behaviour under any alignment and disagree with that.

The DM decides and small variances have zero impact on the players experiences.

You’re adding uneccesary complexity. The Lawful NPC keeps their word unless the DM needs them not to. There is no need to second guess yourself. It’s a general guide to add depth quickly and easily without being complicated.

You have decided you don’t like the system (clearly) and are now trying to justify why.

 

[Oofta]

Basically this boils down to:

1. Some people find it useful in at least some cases.
2. Other people don't find it useful so they want to get rid of it.

Option 1 works for everyone because you can always ignore it, option 2 works only for those that want to get rid of it.

I think option 1 is far more reasonable.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You’re adding uneccesary complexity. The Lawful NPC keeps their word unless the DM needs them not to. There is no need to second guess yourself.

So in effect the NPC keeps their word if the GM decides that they do. Sure. The alignment was the unnecessary complexity here.

You have decided you don’t like the system (clearly) and are now trying to justify why.

I feel the inverse is true. People have nostalgic attachment to an archaic and nonsensical system and they to justify its existence while at the same time cannot even coherently articulate what the system actually does or means and admit to ignoring it often.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Basically this boils down to:

1. Some people find it useful in at least some cases.
2. Other people don't find it useful so they want to get rid of it.

Option 1 works for everyone because you can always ignore it, option 2 works only for those that want to get rid of it.

I think option 1 is far more reasonable.

The problem with this is that alignment is also tied to a lot of problematic characterisations (as we all should be aware at this point, and that was in fact the core of the Crawford's message that spawned this thread.)

So it is an useless mechanic that causes some actual harm (how serious one judges this harm to be is a personal call.) But ultimately at this point it does some harm and very little good. It can very easily be removed and thus it should.

 

[TheSword]

The problem with this is that alignment is also tied to a lot of problematic characterisations (as we all should be aware at this point, and that was in fact the core of the Crawford's message that spawned this thread.)

So it is an useless mechanic that causes some actual harm (how serious one judges this harm to be is a personal call.) But ultimately at this point it does some harm and very little good. It can very easily be removed and thus it should.

Incorrect. Slavish adherence to default alignment was problematic, not the whole system itself... Baby & Bathwater as I said earlier. Trying to remove the whole system does disservice to the contemporary issue. It fulfill the worst fears of those who would otherwise accept changes to drow, Orcs and other humanoids.

 

[Oofta]

The problem with this is that alignment is also tied to a lot of problematic characterisations (as we all should be aware at this point, and that was in fact the core of the Crawford's message that spawned this thread.)

So it is an useless mechanic that causes some actual harm (how serious one judges this harm to be is a personal call.) But ultimately at this point it does some harm and very little good. It can very easily be removed and thus it should.

Problematic tropes will be problematic no matter what. Alignment is just one part of the problem, and wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for other issues. I don't see anyone complaining about the alignments of Allips.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Incorrect. Slavish adherence to default alignment was problematic, not the whole system itself... Baby & Bathwater as I said earlier. Trying to remove the whole system does disservice to the contemporary issue. It fulfill the worst fears of those who would otherwise accept changes to drow, Orcs and other humanoids.

Well, lets say we remove it from humanoids in MM as those seem to be most contentious. And then a lot of people say the basically ignore them for PCs except perhaps as personal descriptors. So what is left? Alignment for Beholders and Demons and such? I guess you could keep that, but at this point it seems pretty pointless. Do you really need to alignment to tell you that these things are evil?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Problematic tropes will be problematic no matter what. Alignment is just one part of the problem, and wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for other issues. I don't see anyone complaining about the alignments of Allips.

No, But you don't need alignment of Allips either.

 

[TheSword]

So in effect the NPC keeps their word if the GM decides that they do. Sure. The alignment was the unnecessary complexity here.

I feel the inverse is true. People have nostalgic attachment to an archaic and nonsensical system and they to justify its existence while at the same time cannot even coherently articulate what the system actually does or means and admit to ignoring it often.

That’s because presumably there would be a reason to have the NPC act differently to their alignment. If there was no reason or the description is trivial then you would just follow the alignment wouldn’t you. Or if you don’t need the inspiration ignore it.

 

[TheSword]

Well, lets say we remove it from humanoids in MM as those seem to be most contentious. And then a lot of people say the basically ignore them for PCs except perhaps as personal descriptors. So what is left? Alignment for Beholders and Demons and such? I guess you could keep that, but at this point it seems pretty pointless. Do you really need to alignment to tell you that these things are evil?

Communities, magic items, gods, monsters, planes, NPCs that’s a lot of things.

It also underpins the background traits.