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.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Perhaps your own understanding of alignments remains inconsistent? You mentioned your own definitions of Good and Evil are the "opposite" (!) of D&D definitions. I am unsure what you mean.

I was not talking about D&D definition in general (which are vague,) I was talking about Gygax's definitions linked earlier in which he argued that 'nits make lice' principle, killing non-combatants and prisoners of enemy faction was lawful and good. To me that is clearly evil.

But there are views of alignments that are consistent, coherent, and unambiguous.

Perhaps in the head of one person there might be. They have had over forty yars to coherently communicate what alignment means, yet no edition of D&D has managed it. Perhaps it is a time to give up?

 

[Haldrik]

I was not talking about D&D definition in general (which are vague,) I was talking about Gygax's definitions linked earlier in which he argued that 'nits make lice' principle, killing non-combatants and prisoners of enemy faction was lawful and good. To me that is clearly evil.

Perhaps in the head of one person there might be. They have had over forty yars to coherently communicate what alignment means, yet no edition of D&D has managed it. Perhaps it is a time to give up?

Thanks for the clarification. Actually I agree.

To me, "nits make lice" is a predatory kind of group think, which is ethically evil.

(Lawful group identity Evil predation.)

Someone might be "selfless" toward fellow members of a group, which shares the same collective self-identity. But then what matters is how this group behaves − in ways Good or Evil toward other groups.

Note, if someone self-identifies as a group, then to protect this kind of "self", is selfish. Harming others to benefit only ones own "self", is Evil.

For example, racist supremacism as an ethnic predation against other ethnicities, is Lawful Evil.

 

[Dynme]

Why they work together does though. Their outlook and the ethics behind it do.

So then the alignment isn't actually telling you much, if anything. Mindflayers will work together because they come from a race that once enslaved entire races across many worlds, and they work together to reclaim their lost glory. Beholders despise every other living creature, including other Beholders, and if they work together with another creature, it's only for as long as the Beholder is personally getting something out of it. In fact based on the lore before the stat block in the MM, I'd hazard a guess that any such cooperation will likely end with the Beholder betraying its partner, which doesn't seem particularly lawful to me.

 

[Haldrik]

Perhaps in the head of one person there might be. They have had over forty years to coherently communicate what alignment means, yet no edition of D&D has managed it. Perhaps it is a time to give up?

5e alignment descriptions bother me less than other editions. Clarity seems doable.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don’t ignore it. Alignment is short hand. It often doesn’t explain how a creature thinks though. Alignment fills that gap and exposition in the Lore expands upon it.

Think of Alignment as the short tactics section in some stat blocks in modules. You’re free to do something different or modify it. But in the absence of an alternative it gives you a good base point in normal situations.

So, if the question was "how will I do anything not related to the statblock" how is this an answer in favor of alignment?

The Lore "expands" upon alignment, which means that if you didn't have alignment, you would still use the lore to fill in gaps and expand on how you run the creature.

Also, alignment is far less detailed than a "short tactics section". Those are usually around three to four sentences, alignmet is a single sentence, at best.

Players get to say what they do, not what the consequences of that are. Players don’t get to decide that killing babies is good and healing the innocent is evil. If we have a reasonable conversation, you ignore me and leave the space blank but consistently do these things, I’m going to put a little note next to your name on my pad and carry on regardless. Right up to you donning you cloak of the Archmage or interacting with that Hound Archon.

Right, it is a tool to punish players.

Notice that you didn't say something like, "if you disregard orders from your superior to save lives" or anything like that. Straight to killing babies, and then I'll get punished when the alignment police come knocking.

I also am left to wonder, due to the order of your post, if I did change it would I still run into that Hound Archon that is going to judge my PC?

Or, how about this scenario, we've been adventuring for a year, and you've never seen my character do anything extreme like killing babies. Maybe he's argued with a quest giver, risked his life for the innocent, and killed people to stop the bad guy from using them for a ritual to destroy a city. We find a robe of the archmagi and you ask me what my alignment is. And I tell you I never wrote one down. Now what do you do?

From your previous statements, I assume you are going to try and flatten my character into two words, to justify whether or not I can sue the loot you gave us.

No, Lawful tells me that they see the value of working with other Mindflayers, even in the absence of the elder brain that acts as their collective conscious. That just happens to coincide with the last 30 years of their use.

There are no lawful hags. Hags often work together in covens.
There are no lawful Yugoloths. They work together in mercenary companies.
There are no lawful Yuan-Ti. They run an empire and work together for the fulfillment of that empire.

But yes, the word Lawful is what tells you that the members of the mindflayer empire see the value of working together even without their hive mind.

Both mind flayers, green dragons and beholders work with other powerful creatures. These are not incompatible with the LE alignments. You’re looking for absolutes when Alignment is broad.

See shackled city.

Look at the quote literally directly above this. You stated that Lawful tells you that mindflayers will work with other mindflayers, that they see value in doing so.

Now it is that mindflayers, Green Dragons, and Beholders will "work with other powerful creatures" because Beholders are Lawful, but they hate and despise other Beholders and kill them on sight.

So, alignment tells you:

Lawful Evil -> Mind Flayers will work with other Mind Flayers, with no outside influence, and work with other creatures
Lawful Evil -> Beholders will kill other Beholders, with no outside influence, but work with other creatures.

It is a guide, not restrictive, and telling us opposite things.

So what is a viable alternative to alignment that can be added to a monster stat block to help describe behavior/motivations? Something short that we can talk about.

Honestly? I don't think we need to replace it.

Every monster except beasts like dinosaurs and panthers gets a lore write-up. At least a paragraph if not three paragraphs. that has plenty of description and information to run the monsters, and is already right next to the statblocks. I feel like that information can stand on its own

 

[TheCosmicKid]

What was that about strawmanning? You'll note that in my posts, I have constantly pointed out the details people have added to the system. If you think I am wrong about those points, discuss it. If you would rather challenge me to think about what I want out of life, kindly stop.

I want you to recognize that you are also adding details to the system in order to defeat it, and that this method of argument is only self-defeating. Every time you point out such a statement in another person's argument, whether rightly or wrongly, you affirm the statement's negation (and usually expand on it with another statement or two of your own). Somebody says that (e.g.) oral tradition is less lawful than written law, you say it is equally lawful if not more so*. The book doesn't say either way. Both claims are interpretations. So what makes your interpretation better than their interpretation? Why should anyone adopt it? You tell us that it leads to a contradiction, but standard interpretive principles tell us to minimize contradictions where possible, so that's exactly the reason we shouldn't adopt it.

*Side note: If your impulse is to defend this particular claim, stop and remember that it's just an example I'm using to illustrate the formal problem. Replace these examples with "P" and "not-P" if it's less distracting.

 

[Lanefan]

Or to reduce a potentially interesting and complex character down to a shallow, one-dimensional caricature of those two words.

Sometimes a shallow one-dimensional caricature is all I need at the time. If there's something in that shallowness I can take hold of and dial to eleven, I'm good.

I've run long-career PCs on not much more than this. Sometimes more depth emerges, other times not so much.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, I'm very happy for you.

I've had all sorts of rows about alignment. Both as a player and a DM. From new players, experienced players, young and old.

So have I, but in hindsight those arguments invariably turn out to be rooted in one or more players trying to twist alignment rules/guidelines to one or more PC's advantage somehow...

Doesn't matter. Heck, had one just recently when we played the Dragon Heist module. I informed the players that one law in Waterdeep is that if you kill someone, you go to jail. Waterdeep does not have a self-defense law. If you kill, you go to jail. Full stop. This exploded into a practically weekly bout of players bitching about how could a lawful city possibly have such laws.

...as this example shows.

 

[Lanefan]

Paladins falling (not relevant anymore)

Is animated the dead/summoning devils an evil act? (Both corner cases)

Am I missing any other major alignment debates that affect players?

Use of poison was called out as Evil in 1e, I've had arguments over that one but it's a rule I've kept.

The biggest one in RAW 1e was the DM having to determine whether a PC had been properly played to alignment when it came time to train, as it directly affected your training costs and time. Even I, who generally likes alignment, did away with this one before I even started DMing.

 

[Lanefan]

So you don't read the lore section next to the stat block?

Not if I don't have to, as chances are extremely high I'm going to be applying my own lore anyway.

But I do want the alignment noted, to give me a starting point; and if the "lore" consists of a physical description of the creature along with maybe a single sentence about its social structure (if any), I can easily take it from there.