• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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...

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

Nope, I said no plausible alternative had been provided. Not that one couldn’t be created. It’s not my responsibility to find a replacement to a system I like.

Neither should a suitable replacement NEED to be played in another game to justify it works. If you can’t explain it sufficiently to get buy in then I suggest it isn’t better than what we have.
Overwhelming majority of RPGs do not use alignment system. Fiction writers do not use alignment system. It is mostly a peculiarity of D&D and related games. Thus it is self evident and games and fiction can work fine without such a relic.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Aldarc

Legend
The cypher ‘hungers for flesh’ is too narrow, to specific, and tells almost nothing else about the creature, god, NPCs outlook on things not related to the fact that they hunger for flesh.
Do you need knowledge of the giant spider's "god" or "NPC's outlook on things not related to the fact that they hunger for flesh" so that you can run it? What does the alignment of a rust monster tell you about how to run it? Would you run a rust monster differently without an alignment system in place?

It replaces 20% of the alignment system and not much more.
Alignment does not tell you everything about a monster either.

I will give you a few sample creature entries from the Cypher System, but I will replace the name of the creature. Then tell me whether or not you could run it.

Creature 1
Creature 1s are wicked, grasping, and perversely resourceful. Usually no larger than children, they can seem like pesky rabble, but that illusion hides something altogether more cunning. Tribe members work together to accomplish their goals of murder, kidnapping, and theft.
Motive: Greed and theft
Environment: Tunnels and caves, usually in groups of ten or more
Health: 3
Damage Inflicted: 2 points
Movement: Short
Modifications: Tasks related to perception, stealth, and setting traps as level 5
Combat: Creature 1s attack from the shadows with ambushes and hit-and-run tactics. When they have surprise, they attack as level 4 creatures and deal 2 additional points of damage, and they attempt to draw larger prey into level 5 traps they’ve previously set. They often flee in the face of real danger.
Interaction: Creature 1s are lying tricksters but can be cowed into cooperating for short periods.
Use: Thieves and murderers, Creature 1s are foes to all, even rival Creature 1 tribes.
Loot: Aside from weapons, each Creature 1 carries a personal stash, including bones, shiny rocks, sticks, and other bits of worthless trash, plus currency equivalent to an inexpensive item.

Creature 2
Creature 2s are formless spirits of the dead tortured in nether realms until all that was good or caring in them was burned away, forging a being of spite and hate. A Creature 2 remembers only fragments of its former life—every good memory is cauterized, and every slight, misfortune, snub, and pain is amplified, motivating the creature to tempt others into the same state. Having no flesh to call its own, a Creature 2 is a shadowed, ephemeral horror able to possess others. A Creature 2 can cause great harm in a short time by forcing its host to lie, steal, and harm loved ones.
Motive: Hungers for others’ pain and fear
Environment: Anywhere
Health: 25
Damage Inflicted: 6 points
Movement: Short; immediate while flying in immaterial form
Modifications: All stealth tasks as level 7 in immaterial form; deception tasks as level 6
Combat: The immaterial touch of a Creature 2 either inflicts 5 points of damage from rot, or allows the Creature 2 to attempt to possess the target. The target of an attempted possession must make an Intellect defense roll or become possessed, whereupon the Creature 2’s immaterial form disappears
into the target.

The first round in which a character is possessed, they can act normally. In the second and all subsequent rounds, the possessing Creature 2 can control the actions of the host, but the character can attempt an Intellect defense roll to resist each suggested action. Successful resistance means that the character does nothing for one round. In other rounds, the character can act as they choose. A possessing Creature 2’s actions are limited to attempts to control its host and leaving the host.

A possessed target is allowed an Intellect defense roll to eject the Creature 2 once per day, barring any exorcism attempts. The defense roll is hindered by one additional step each day of possession after the first seven days. An ejected or cast-out Creature 2 is powerless for one or more days.

A Creature 2 not possessing another creature is immaterial and can pass through solid objects whose level is lower than its own. While the Creature 2 is immaterial, it takes only 1 point of damage from mundane attacks, but it takes full damage from magical, energy, and psychic attacks. While it possesses another creature, the Creature 2 is immune to most attacks (though not so the host; killing the host will eject the Creature 2).

Interaction: A Creature 2 allows a possessed host to act normally, as long as it doesn’t reveal the Creature 2’s presence. If its presence is known, the Creature 2 might negotiate, but only after a tirade of lies and obscenity, and the Creature 2 likely betrays any deal reached.
Use: An ally of the PCs has begun acting differently, and not for the good.

But its usefulness as a shorthand description of the general tendency of a group or society or nation or creature type - how did you replace that without using a lot more words?
I'm not afraid of a few more words.
 

TheSword

Legend
Do you need knowledge of the giant spider's "god" or "NPC's outlook on things not related to the fact that they hunger for flesh" so that you can run it? What does the alignment of a rust monster tell you about how to run it? Would you run a rust monster differently without an alignment system in place?
It’s pretty disingenuous to claim alignment has anything to do with animal level intelligences don’t you think?

You haven’t sold the system, you’re just implying there’s something wrong with a person if they can’t use it.

Not convinced.

Definitely tired of going round the houses and repetition. Please don’t take my lack of response Aldarc as any kind of agreement.
 
Last edited:

Aldarc

Legend
It’s pretty disingenuous to claim alignment has anything to do with animal level intelligences don’t you think?
I'm not following you. I have not made any claim about animal intelligence level.

You haven’t sold the system, you’re just implying there’s something wrong with a person if they can’t use it.
I have made no such implication.

Overwhelming majority of RPGs do not use alignment system. Fiction writers do not use alignment system. It is mostly a peculiarity of D&D and related games. Thus it is self evident and games and fiction can work fine without such a relic.
The thing is that I am not entirely opposed to a notion of alignment. There are settings where it works and feels appropriate. However, in the context of D&D, it feels about as useful as a guide to how to roleplay a person or creature as knowing its astrological sign or Myers-Brigg Type. Sure, for certain people knowing a demon's Myers-Brigg Type or astrological sign would help them roleplay that NPC, but is it really all that informative?
 
Last edited:

Eric V

Hero
More words is fine. And considering how insanely vague and subjective alignment is you don't need to use a lot of more words to get something that is more useful. Of course more words you use, more accurate you can get.
This. Saying that they are "Lawful Neutral" or whatever often made things more confusing since no one can agree on what the alignment terms specifically mean, anyway.
 

Hussar

Legend
Season's not over yet. :)

At this point, though, I'd say @Hussar, @TheSword, @TheCosmicKid, @Oofta and @Chaosmancer are locks to make the playoffs. @Crimson Longinus, @Maxperson, @Eric V, @Aldarc, myself, and a few others are fighting it out for the last three spots...

Hang on a tick, I haven't added anything to this thread in pages, mostly because I bowed out quietly. The fact that we have a 70 ish page thread about alignment and people can't even agree on basic definitions is proof enough to me that this was never a good idea.
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
On the individual character level I can see this.

But its usefulness as a shorthand description of the general tendency of a group or society or nation or creature type - how did you replace that without using a lot more words?

Well, I don't mind using more words. However, if I was wanting to be minimalistic I would asign key words that are more descriptive like, "brutal", "militaristic", "altruistic", "theocratic", "clannish", "stand-offish", etc.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Mod Note:

@Aldarc and @TheSword - you both have been throwing insults at each other for some time now, and both are on the edge of getting removed from the discussion.

Treat each other with respect, or stop posting in the thread. Those are your options.
 

"theocratic"
The term "theocratic" seems problematic, possibly even accusatory and hostile against religious cultures.

Some religious traditions seem hierarchical and possibly deserve the term.

But other religious traditions seem egalitarian, and a different term to describe it feels more accurate and more positive.

Some aboriginal traditions vote to decide what their clans do. Some monotheistic traditions emphasize each human is the image of divinity. And so on.

There are many different kinds of ways to be "religious".
 
Last edited:

The term "theocratic" seems problematic, possibly even accusatory and hostile against religious cultures.

Some religious traditions seem hierarchical and possibly deserve the term.

But other religious traditions seem egalitarian, and a different term to describe it feels more accurate and more positive.

Some aboriginal traditions vote to decide what their clans do. Some monotheistic traditions emphasize each human is the image of divinity. And so on.

There are many different kinds of ways to be "religious".
What are you on about? Theocracy is a thing. And nowhere was it implied that theocracy is synonymous with religious.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top