• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! 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


log in or register to remove this ad

Even when they first appeared in the Fiend Folio Slaad have leaned towards evil; death slaad (who were some of the most powerful slaad) were explicitly at least sometimes there from the start. Also slaad have always been inimical and explicitly described as having a warped sense of humour. As exemplars of chaos they've always been tapdancing the CN/CE line and over the years; Charles Stross (their creator) describes them as something like "Lovecraftian by someone who hadn't read Lovecraft." It's possible to claim that Great Cthulhu and the rest of the mythos aren't evil - but when most extraplanar mythos beings are inimical as they are then intent isn't magic.

Since Lovecraft himself was a racist supremacist advocate of reallife N*zism, his fiction can be expected to transmit reallife hatespeech tropes relating to his personal obsessions.

The vibe I got from how WotC supports this white supremacist, is that the cthulu-esque tropes are Neutral Evil, and personify this alignment similar to how devils and demons do theirs. Lovecraft of WotC comes across as Lawful Evil, like the mindflayer, and could simply be banal racism generalized against the human race. Yet, the tropes are also nihilistic in the way that a Chaotic Evil demon is. Hence, Neutral Evil oscillating between group and individual to do as much Evil as possible.
 
Last edited:

Oofta

Legend
30 years playing with multiple groups. Never been a problem.

People see what they want to see in this discussion.

Plus anyone who considers Bell of Lost Souls take on D&D as banging a drum clearly doesn’t read much BOLs

I suspect some people* that have a problem with it may complain about it loudly and regularly. When no one speaks up and just nod politely the assumption is that they agree when perhaps they just don't care enough to engage.

*not saying this applies to anyone posting on this thread, just a general observation about this type of topic.
 

jsaving

Adventurer
I've never really understood the lawful is good, chaotic is evil thing. It kind of made sense in the wargame roots of D&D but that was really just saying whether you were on the blue team or the red team.
When 4e design lead Andy Collins was asked about that, he said chaotic individuals care about freedom because they are self-interested which is just a 30 degree pivot from selfishness. Lawful characters on the other hand care about the collective which he saw as being just a 30 degree pivot from working toward the good of all. Viewed from that perspective, you can see why the 4e team couldn't relate to CG/CN/LN/LE and thought it best those self-contradictory alignments be dropped from the game.

Whereas a lot of players would say, wait a minute, caring about the collective is often just a smoke-screen for making other people do what you say whereas standing up for people's right to be left alone is the best way to protect people from society's often-retrograde shackles on what they can say or do. Viewed from that perspective, you'd not only find the 4e team's take inexplicable but might even be angered that the alignments with which you identify (CG/CN in particular) have suddenly been labeled so out-of-bounds that they don't merit a place in the ruleset.
 

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
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.

I must have Law versus Chaos in my campaign or ...... I would have to re-do the entire thing?
 

SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
When 4e design lead Andy Collins was asked about that, he said chaotic individuals care about freedom because they are self-interested which is just a 30 degree pivot from selfishness. Lawful characters on the other hand care about the collective which he saw as being just a 30 degree pivot from working toward the good of all. Viewed from that perspective, you can see why the 4e team couldn't relate to CG/CN/LN/LE and thought it best those self-contradictory alignments be dropped from the game.

Whereas a lot of players would say, wait a minute, caring about the collective is often just a smoke-screen for making other people do what you say whereas standing up for people's right to be left alone is the best way to protect people from society's often-retrograde shackles on what they can say or do. Viewed from that perspective, you'd not only find the 4e team's take inexplicable but might even be angered that the alignments with which you identify (CG/CN in particular) have suddenly been labeled so out-of-bounds that they don't merit a place in the ruleset.
Well said.
 

Eric V

Hero
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.
The 4e alignment system makes more sense when referencing real-world moral philosophy, so that's a feature, IMO.
 

Oofta

Legend
The 4e alignment system makes more sense when referencing real-world moral philosophy, so that's a feature, IMO.

Can't say that I agree. But then again I don't think chaotic is only about self interest. It's more whether you see the universe as a clockwork mechanism with a natural order to everything vs seeing no natural order but the order we superficially impose. Which is more frame of reference theory the mind and philosophy.

edit: also, why can't lawful be motivated by self interest? It's a given that many lawyers are lawful and many are driven only by self interest.
 

Eric V

Hero
When 4e design lead Andy Collins was asked about that, he said chaotic individuals care about freedom because they are self-interested which is just a 30 degree pivot from selfishness. Lawful characters on the other hand care about the collective which he saw as being just a 30 degree pivot from working toward the good of all. Viewed from that perspective, you can see why the 4e team couldn't relate to CG/CN/LN/LE and thought it best those self-contradictory alignments be dropped from the game.

Whereas a lot of players would say, wait a minute, caring about the collective is often just a smoke-screen for making other people do what you say whereas standing up for people's right to be left alone is the best way to protect people from society's often-retrograde shackles on what they can say or do. Viewed from that perspective, you'd not only find the 4e team's take inexplicable but might even be angered that the alignments with which you identify (CG/CN in particular) have suddenly been labeled so out-of-bounds that they don't merit a place in the ruleset.
True. But then, they aren't authentically Lawful. They might use similar terms and such, but if they don't authentically "care about the collective" then they aren't really Lawful. They try to come across that way, but they're just not, at the core.

That's why the Bond villain example earlier falls down: he may pretend to have a code he adheres to, but if he was going to kill Bond anyway (I think in the example it was dependent on what drink Bond ordered), then he's not really LE, he's just E. Unless one is LG, it seems the L is just a dressing of some kind.

The 4e alignment system describes people and things as they authentically are, without trying to define what they pretend to be.
 

Eric V

Hero
Can't say that I agree. But then again I don't think chaotic is only about self interest. It's more whether you see the universe as a clockwork mechanism with a natural order to everything vs seeing no natural order but the order we superficially impose. Which is more frame of reference theory the mind and philosophy.

edit: also, why can't lawful be motivated by self interest? It's a given that many lawyers are lawful and many are driven only by self interest.
From a moral philosophy POV I don't think it's a given that lawyers are lawful at all.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top