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]

Hey. Since you clearly can't understand what it's about and how it can help, feel free to ignore it. If you insult me again on the topic, I'll report your post.

I did not insult you. But no one has been able to define what information alignment actually provides. It very much seems to me that people just say 'it is useful to me' and then perhaps tell some example how alignment told them something specific about certain monster. Then we instantly find out that this fact will also apply to a monster of different alignment and not apply to some monster of the same alignment, so this was not something that could have actually been concluded from the alignment. People make conclusions about monsters, then think that was because of alignment, even though no logical link between those conclusions and the alignment exists.

 

[Maxperson]

I did not insult you.

Calling it a "security blanket" and "A bit like a horoscope" strongly implies that I'm a child who believes in the tooth fairy. Don't do that to me again.

But no one has been able to define what information alignment actually provides.

It doesn't need a clear definition to provide it. If YOU don't find it useful, then don't use it. If you claim that it has no use in general, you are objectively wrong, because it is useful to many of us.

It very much seems to me that people just say 'it is useful to me' and then perhaps tell some example how alignment told them something specific about certain monster. Then we instantly find out that this fact will also apply to a monster of different alignment and not apply to some monster of the same alignment, so this was not something that could have actually been concluded from the alignment. People make conclusions about monsters, then think that was because of alignment, even though no logical link between those conclusions and the alignment exists.

It gives me a general idea of the behavior of a creature. I don't need specifics to play a monster, and it's entirely irrelevant if other monster specific lore also provides a monster with the same behavior as a piece of an alignment.

 

[Haldrik]

Alignment also does something. I find it very useful when DM. If it did nothing, that would not be possible.

The alignments call attention to two different kinds of struggle.

Good-versus-Evil is a journey.

The Good-versus-Evil alignments heighten a story about the ethical conflict between light versus emptiness. I view this conflict as starting with mostly emptiness and trying to reveal as much light as sustainably possible. It is an evolution toward illumination, difficult and protracted, but overall more and more light in more and more creative ways.

Law-versus-Chaos is a harmony.

The Law-versus-Chaos alignments are a different kind of conflict. Here the opposing forces are a dialectic. Each side has benefits and costs, yet are mostly mutually exclusive. The effort is to optimize a dynamic equilibrium that can benefit from both forces as much as possible. For example, ethically, the opposing forces are collective justice and fairness versus individual compassion and personal initiative. These forces are conflictive, but the ideal is to somehow figure out ways to do both sides well. I prefer to refer to this optimization between Law and Chaos as "True", hence True Good, True Neutral, and True Evil.

A D&D setting can focus on only Good-versus-Evil, or only Law-versus-Chaos, or both conflicts simultaneously.

Both of these oppositional polarities emerge from deep human archetypes. They each inform worldviews and can feel cosmic in scope. I am glad the alignments are available as story telling tools in D&D, to organize and heighten these different kinds of conflicts. The alignments can make D&D adventures feel epic.

 

[R_Chance]

Yeah, that does work. Hobgoblins are actually a great example of the type of humanoid that works within a structure looks like.

I've never tried to say there is no such thing as Lawful Evil, the point is that I can find lawful evil characters who match chaotic evil characters. It then raises the question about how useful the label is.

I think a lot of problems have emerged when alignment and behavior don't mesh. A result of (imho) mislabeled alignment, and behavior which was not thought through in respect to the stated alignment. Changes in alignment between editions and an increasingly extensive body of behavior exacerbate the problem and make the connection between alignment and behavior fuzzier.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You've done no such thing. You've only shown how alignment doesn't help you as an individual. Alignment and creature lore are not mutually exclusive things. As such, alignment does tell you something about the creature. It just doesn't tell you everything.

Right because all the times that I've shown different alignments on creautres with the exact same attitudes, traits and personalities is only showing how it doesn't work for me personally, not showing that these things are contradictory.

Well, in addition to whatever they are about as a race, they will be generally prone to acting on their whims, often acting carefree without regard to good or evil.

So, you wouldn't be able to run with just the alignment. Like you said you would be able to since you said that you often don't have time to read their statblocks.

You'd miss that they have a heirarchy based of age, being ruled by Prince's who are the eldest of them. You would have missed that they are forest guardians, who don't appear before mortals often, but can help subtly guide those who they deem friends of the forest while slaughtering those they see as enemies of the forest. Or that their antlers are a sign of their status, and breaking or cutting them is a grave punishment and deep humiliation for them.

But, you were able to say they act like they want, and don't care too much about Good and Evil... which is pretty much 90% of all things, acting like they want.

It gives me a general idea of the behavior of a creature. I don't need specifics to play a monster, and it's entirely irrelevant if other monster specific lore also provides a monster with the same behavior as a piece of an alignment.

A general idea that could apply to any monster of any alignment. That is the problem.

Chaotic neutral Slaad are still monsters that will try and kill you on sight, so how are they different from Demons who are Chaotic Evil? Neutral Evil Hags also join in groups and make deals they won't break, so how are they different from Lawful Evil Devils?

The general idea is so vague, it provides nothing that couldn't be gleaned from knowing what the monster is about through it's lore.

I think a lot of problems have emerged when alignment and behavior don't mesh. A result of (imho) mislabeled alignment, and behavior which was not thought through in respect to the stated alignment. Changes in alignment between editions and an increasingly extensive body of behavior exacerbate the problem and make the connection between alignment and behavior fuzzier.

Exactly. Alignment just doesn't fit anymore on a lot of creatures.

 

[R_Chance]

Exactly. Alignment just doesn't fit anymore on a lot of creatures.

My point is it should and can. In many cases they are "out of alignment" That's fixable. I like digging in and making things work / fit. 45 years of changing alignments and behavior / fluff can make that problematic. So, rather than dump alignment in a future edition I think they should survey their creatures and alignments and put it right. Define their alignments more carefully, apply the results properly, and make sure everything fits (within bounds). I'd bet there would be fewer alignment discussions / threads. Although I'm sure there will always be some

 

[Haldrik]

Chaotic neutral Slaad are still monsters that will try and kill you on sight, so how are they different from Demons who are Chaotic Evil? Neutral Evil Hags also join in groups and make deals they won't break, so how are they different from Lawful Evil Devils?

If Slaad are Chaotic Neutral, then they really are Neutral. They personify Chaos to an extreme. With regard to behavior, they absolutely champion personal freedom of choice, and aggressively seek to destroy any sense of social obligation. As long as a party respects personal freedom to choose, the Slaad would normally be peaceful, perhaps even helpful ... if they feel like it.

Demons personify Chaotic Evil, and each one is more like an opportunistic predator. Especially, each demon exhibits solipsism to a degree that is nihilistic. Destroying for the sake of personal gain without regard to consequences. Demons tend to win the battle but lose the war. But each one excels at winning battles, and perhaps would do so indefinitely.

Hags (at least the D&D version of hags) tend to be True Evil. To some degree their outlook resembles a Neitsche uberman. They can either follow their own personal desires or form a common alliance with other ubermen, whatever achieves the most gain personally, and predatorily. Hags are cruel and merciless.

Devils are Lawful Evil, self-identifying as a group, collectively. They are like a pack of malevolent wolves who prey on herds. They think in terms of groups, such as being racist against humans. Even when they try to seduce and manipulate humans, the devils themselves are disgusted by humans. An individual devil might even sacrifice oneself if it enables the other devils to successfully destroy humans. Each devil strives to empower the devilish group above all other groups.

Alignment can help the DM track deeper motives, when deciding how an encounter plays out, especially for these creatures that personify alignment extremes.

In an epic setting, the setting itself shifts appearance, depending on which direction the scales of balance of alignment are inclining. Sometimes the entire cosmos transfigures or disfigures.

 

[Maxperson]

Right because all the times that I've shown different alignments on creautres with the exact same attitudes, traits and personalities is only showing how it doesn't work for me personally, not showing that these things are contradictory.

There is no contradiction.

So, you wouldn't be able to run with just the alignment. Like you said you would be able to since you said that you often don't have time to read their statblocks.

I could. I can create some lore here and there to go with it if I choose, or no lore at all a fair amount of the time. Many times the players aren't interacting with monsters to the point where lore comes into play, but enough that alignment does. The rest of the time I could just improv some lore and go on.

You'd miss that they have a heirarchy based of age, being ruled by Prince's who are the eldest of them. You would have missed that they are forest guardians, who don't appear before mortals often, but can help subtly guide those who they deem friends of the forest while slaughtering those they see as enemies of the forest. Or that their antlers are a sign of their status, and breaking or cutting them is a grave punishment and deep humiliation for them.

Sure, but if the players were going to interact with them beyond a quick fight, I could come up with it or read what I need to know........and then add alignment to all of that, because you know, they aren't mutually exclusive things.

But, you were able to say they act like they want, and don't care too much about Good and Evil... which is pretty much 90% of all things, acting like they want.

Cool. Cool. Not what I said, though.

A general idea that could apply to any monster of any alignment. That is the problem.

Monsters don't just act however they want without limits. They act how they want within the constraints of their alignment. It's the alignment descriptions that apply the constraints.

Chaotic neutral Slaad are still monsters that will try and kill you on sight, so how are they different from Demons who are Chaotic Evil? Neutral Evil Hags also join in groups and make deals they won't break, so how are they different from Lawful Evil Devils?

So first, Slaads only try to kill Modrons on sight, being polar opposites. Other than that, they are beings of pure chaos. That means that they act on their whims(different than acting like they want). Or in other words, CN. Demons on the other hand are into might makes right. Their whims are dark and twisted, and they relish in their evil ways. Or in other words, CE. Hags are evil without respect to law or chaos. Their bargains are made in order to twist others to evil and nothing says that they won't break these bargains, and in fact says that they do break them. They will however put stipulations in them to cause the downfall of the mortals involved in the bargain. Nothing lawful there. And even if there was something lawful there, nothing says that every action has to be within the creature's alignment. Perhaps that's what you fail to understand and where your difficulties lie.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I take the information people are presenting me. And l examine it.

Mind Flayers being Lawful Evil does not tell us they play nice with other Mind Flayers. If it did then Beholders would play nice with other Beholders, and Devils wouldn't be constantly scheming to ruin each other for their own gain. Hags, which are neutral evil, also work together. Just as well as Mind Flayers generally.

I'm also showing that if "following rules for fear of punishment" is a factor in orcs being chaotic... well, then Devils are chaotic for the same reason. They also fear being punished for breaking the rules. They just have no capability to escape.

I mean, I've given nearly a dozen different examples, each using the book and the presented case of the person I'm discussing with. Yet I'm relying on my own assumed premises?

"You say dogs bark, but the sea lions at the zoo bark, and you say they aren't dogs. Contradiction! Yet again! Even more evidence that this whole 'dog' business is nonsense. You clearly stated barking to be the defining feature of a dog, that's the only way a statement like 'dogs bark' could be interpreted, I'm not reading anything into it that isn't explicitly there already. I'm just taking the information you're presenting me and examining it. I'm the rational one here, Mom!"

Well, they seem like they would have a hard time of it. Seems like a lot of that was much less overlapping and contradictory than you thought.

Though, if you didn't even care in the first place, that explains the Merrow example. I still have no idea where you got the idea for Giant from.

And it seems to me like alignment is much less overlapping and contradictory than you think, and yet here we are.

(If you're really curious: merrow were giants in 3E. They're basically mer-ogres. Will-o'-wisps were aberrations, too, and half-dragons did count as dragons.)

 

[Chaosmancer]

My point is it should and can. In many cases they are "out of alignment" That's fixable. I like digging in and making things work / fit. 45 years of changing alignments and behavior / fluff can make that problematic. So, rather than dump alignment in a future edition I think they should survey their creatures and alignments and put it right. Define their alignments more carefully, apply the results properly, and make sure everything fits (within bounds). I'd bet there would be fewer alignment discussions / threads. Although I'm sure there will always be some

I want to take a moment to thank you for your positions.

I think if they did go in and redefine alignment, and reapply it, they might be able to make something better, but I am uncertain if the amount of time and energy put into that endeavor would be worth it. Again, I've found that the lore descriptions offer plenty of information for me to run monsters, with no need for alignment considerations, and I just don't understand why people insist those paragraphs are somehow insufficient to stand on their own.

But, a rework of alignment could be useful, if they tightened their terms and what they meant.

If Slaad are Chaotic Neutral, then they really are Neutral. They personify Chaos to an extreme. With regard to behavior, they absolutely champion personal freedom of choice, and aggressively seek to destroy any sense of social obligation. As long as a party respects personal freedom to choose, the Slaad would normally be peaceful, perhaps even helpful ... if they feel like it.

Demons personify Chaotic Evil, and each one is more like an opportunistic predator. Especially, each demon exhibits solipsism to a degree that is nihilistic. Destroying for the sake of personal gain without regard to consequences. Demons tend to win the battle but lose the war. But each one excels at winning battles, and perhaps would do so indefinitely.

Hags (at least the D&D version of hags) tend to be True Evil. To some degree their outlook resembles a Neitsche uberman. They can either follow their own personal desires or form a common alliance with other ubermen, whatever achieves the most gain personally, and predatorily. Hags are cruel and merciless.

Devils are Lawful Evil, self-identifying as a group, collectively. They are like a pack of malevolent wolves who prey on herds. They think in terms of groups, such as being racist against humans. Even when they try to seduce and manipulate humans, the devils themselves are disgusted by humans. An individual devil might even sacrifice oneself if it enables the other devils to successfully destroy humans. Each devil strives to empower the devilish group above all other groups.

Alignment can help the DM track deeper motives, when deciding how an encounter plays out, especially for these creatures that personify alignment extremes.

In an epic setting, the setting itself shifts appearance, depending on which direction the scales of balance of alignment are inclining. Sometimes the entire cosmos transfigures or disfigures.

I'm going to combine this part with @Maxperson 's response in the similiar vein.

Firstly, I have never once encountered or heard of a benevolent Slaad. They breed by warping and twisting mortal creatures or by laying eggs in them to burst out and kill them. They also keep slave camps for those breeding arrangements according to older lore. Like how the creatures most personifying free-will employ prison breeding camps for murdering people and turning them into slaad

Also, for embodying Chaos they are very predictable. Their life cycle is heavily regimented and follows a strict path. They all appear in the exact same manner, unlike say, demons,and even have a mating season in some lore.

Also, just re-read all of Volo's and the hag entry. Nothing says they will break their deals. In fact, they mention that the biggest differences between a Devil and a Hag are that hags will wait for people to come to them, and that they don't want your soul, they want to make you miserable in this life.

They even have strict codes they follow when dealing with other hags or fey. And since they all keep in contact, and Covens are a thing, I'm really not sure why they wouldn't be considered lawful. They aren't pleasant, but that is what the Evil is about.

I could. I can create some lore here and there to go with it if I choose, or no lore at all a fair amount of the time. Many times the players aren't interacting with monsters to the point where lore comes into play, but enough that alignment does. The rest of the time I could just improv some lore and go on.

Sure, but if the players were going to interact with them beyond a quick fight, I could come up with it or read what I need to know........and then add alignment to all of that, because you know, they aren't mutually exclusive things.

Sounds like you could do all that without alignment too. Just make things up, or if it is just a quick fight it might not even matter.

Cool. Cool. Not what I said, though.

Monsters don't just act however they want without limits. They act how they want within the constraints of their alignment. It's the alignment descriptions that apply the constraints.

Right, forgot. Your exact words were "they will be generally prone to acting on their whims, often acting carefree without regard to good or evil."

My interpretation of those words are that they would act like they want (that is the interpretation of where you said they act on their whims, whims being things that they want to do) and they generally won't care about good or evil (that being the interpretation of them acting carefree without regard to good or evil)

Which, again. Most mortals on the street do what they want to do, acting on their whims and fancies, and most of them do not care overly much about things being good or evil. A greedy blacksmith who cheats his customers isn't thinking "Ah, I would like to create more evil in the world and spread misery" they are thinking about their own gains, and acting for their own desires. They don't really care if the action is good or evil. They are just doing what they want.

But, I'm sure you'll find some way to twist this into me being wrong again. Have fun.

"You say dogs bark, but the sea lions at the zoo bark, and you say they aren't dogs. Contradiction! Yet again! Even more evidence that this whole 'dog' business is nonsense. You clearly stated barking to be the defining feature of a dog, that's the only way a statement like 'dogs bark' could be interpreted, I'm not reading anything into it that isn't explicitly there already. I'm just taking the information you're presenting me and examining it. I'm the rational one here, Mom!"

Wow, the third time you've compared me to a petulant child. You know, I think I feel a change coming over me, I think that...

Wait, no, this is still puerile and annoying. Just like when you were telling me that my lack of understanding was the problem.

Honestly, if you are this far devolved into personal attacks, would you mind not cluttering up the thread? Just PM me all the insults you'd like to level at me. It will save everyone else from having to read them.

(If you're really curious: merrow were giants in 3E. They're basically mer-ogres. Will-o'-wisps were aberrations, too, and half-dragons did count as dragons.)

Huh, I never knew they were mere-ogres in the past. Neat.

I was aware that Will-O-Wisps have changed quite a few times, and I can see Half-Dragons counting as both humanoid and draconic.