• 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

Remathilis

Legend
Seeing the rest of the posts about this, it certainly doesn't seem like it was the DnD they needed though. I mean, CG, LN, and LE didn't exist, but as far as you the DM noticed, they still played those characters. It sounds like they don't need the alignment system at all, they could crack open 6e, see no alignments listed and continue on doing what they are doing.

So, if you don't need it, why waste the page count on it?

When my players cracked open the 4e PHB, they also noticed there was no gnomes, half-orcs, barbarians, monks, bards, druids and sorcerers. Yet they were able to still make characters to play. Guess we don't need those things either in 6e.

¯\(ツ)
 

log in or register to remove this ad


The drum beats ever louder...

Loud is not right, it's just loud :)

So, to summarize the article , 5E didn't do a good job with alignment. Let's get rid of it. Oh, and ability scores too.

There are plenty of things in 5E (and previous editions) that people have felt were not well done. Alignment tops a few lists. Then there's initiative, abilities, feats, skills, classes, experience, multi classing, the magic system, saving throws, and more. I've listened to rants about hit points being obsolete too. People think something is not useful or is just "wrong". We all have our hobby horses. I'm not a fan of the current initiative system for example. I don't see the need to get rid of it though. Some people find it, or at least some type of initiative system, to be useful.

More people would find any of these systems / ideas "good" (err, not talking alignment here :D ) if they were better written and defined. If some thought had been put into it. Alignment has been pretty much ignored in the "let's fix it" attempts of the current edition of 5E D&D. 4E at least made a half as... well, some attempt to "fix it". Different aspects of the game get more, or less, attention in the next iteration of the game. That doesn't mean we can just dump anything the designers don't spend their limited time on.

Classically speaking when something didn't work for your table, you fixed it. Home brewing is a thing for a reason. You didn't assume you were right and your way must prevail. Given how many posters here have said they don't use alignment that's still a thing. Of course many posters have said they do use it (I do). Should the next edition live up to the "modular" idea they talked up in DDN? Maybe it should. I don't see the need for it to drop any of the systems I mentioned above, including alignment. That's my 2 cp, ymmv.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
When my players cracked open the 4e PHB, they also noticed there was no gnomes, half-orcs, barbarians, monks, bards, druids and sorcerers. Yet they were able to still make characters to play. Guess we don't need those things either in 6e.

¯\(ツ)


Did they play Gnomes, half-orcs, barbarians, monks, bards, druids and sorcerers without those rules?

Because you stated they could play Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, and Lawful Neutral without the rules, so if they could play a Gnome Druid without the rules for Gnomes and druids, then you would have a point.
 

Remathilis

Legend
Did they play Gnomes, half-orcs, barbarians, monks, bards, druids and sorcerers without those rules?

Because you stated they could play Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good, and Lawful Neutral without the rules, so if they could play a Gnome Druid without the rules for Gnomes and druids, then you would have a point.
I'm saying they made due with the rules they had, and that unaligned was useless because it can be CG, LN, LE or anything else.

I'm not arguing about the general usefulness/uselessness of alignment, but that 4e's version was worse than no alignment at all.
 

Um ... no? Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't make naughty word up. I can't think of a single person that voiced significant complaints about alignment in person. Maybe because I never expected alignment to dictate every thought, word and deed.

Fair enough, but I think your experience is extremely unusual.

I'm saying they made due with the rules they had, and that unaligned was useless because it can be CG, LN, LE or anything else.

I'm not arguing about the general usefulness/uselessness of alignment, but that 4e's version was worse than no alignment at all.

That's not an argument that you've convincingly made, though.
 


billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
I'm saying they made due with the rules they had, and that unaligned was useless because it can be CG, LN, LE or anything else.

Not really. The description was pretty clear that CG and LE wouldn't really fit with it.

I'm not arguing about the general usefulness/uselessness of alignment, but that 4e's version was worse than no alignment at all.

Maybe not worse, but going beyond Good, Evil, Unaligned with LG and CE was a half-assed solution to adding elements of the 9-alignment system without adding its full complexity.
 

Voadam

Legend
Maybe not worse, but going beyond Good, Evil, Unaligned with LG and CE was a half-assed solution to adding elements of the 9-alignment system without adding its full complexity.
I agree it would have been better with just Evil, Unaligned, and Good.

It made even less sense in 4e than it did in Warhammer Fantasty Roleplay where Chaos was a big cosmological evil where it could be argued it was worse than just non-Chaos Evil.
 

There should just be 'personality' (or something like that) line on the character sheet. And then people could write on it 'Lawful Good', 'Chaotic Neutral', 'Grumpy but decent,' 'Edgy badass', 'Hufflepuff', 'Jack Sparrow' or whatever they thought describes their character's nature. And that's it, it is just for the player and it doesn't matter if someone doesn't agree with them what the core values of 'Lawful Good or 'Hufflepuff' are.
On my character sheet alignment is in the same section as ideal, ambition, quirk, and flaw.
 
Last edited:


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top