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.

 

[Haldrik]

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

Reallife political philosophies are often Chaotic Good (individual freedom) versus Lawful Evil (collective coercion).

While Lawful Good (collective freedom) exists, there is a CG-versus-LE continuum.

 

[Eric V]

Reallife political philosophies are often Chaotic Good (individual freedom) versus Lawful Evil (collective coercion).

While Lawful Good (collective freedom) exists, there is a CG-versus-LE continuum.

Can you give an example of a CG political philosophy?

 

[billd91]

Can you give an example of a CG political philosophy?

Rawlsian liberalism is a reasonable fit.

 

[Eric V]

Rawlsian liberalism is a reasonable fit.

Not bad, but it still ultimately prioritizes the collective in conflicts with the individual.

 

[billd91]

Anarcho-syndicalism is also a reasonable fit.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Caring about the collective hasn't been the definition of lawful since OD&D. Even then it was "implying honor and respect for society's rules" vs "implying rebelliousness and individualism". It may be your definition, and 5E (personally I prefer 3.x's definitions) only mentions that LG "can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society." LN and LE don't mention the collective at all and focus more on tradition.

 

[Haldrik]

prioritizes the collective in conflicts with the individual.

Humans are social animals.

Each one of us is both an individual and an assemblage of identity groups.

There is no such thing as a cognitively functional human that is only an individual or only a group.



By analogy, we are all rational and emotional. Some of us place reason in the foreground and leave emotion in the background, or oppositely place emotion in the foreground and reason in the background. But each of us is both.



Similarly, in the conflict between Chaotic individualism and Lawful collectivism, each one of us includes both.



To personify extreme Lawful or extreme Chaotic, is literally nonhuman.

 

[Flamestrike]

Again. Until the core books specifically outline what is defined as Good and what is Evil, D&D morality might as well be subjective.

That can be clearly inferred though cant it?

Look at the actions of evil beings in the MM. Torture, slavery, murder, rape, harming others.

Now look at the actions of good aligned beings in the MM. They do none of that, and actively oppose those acts.

Unicorns dont go around murdering, raping, enslaving and torturing others. They're good aligned. Demons do. They're evilly aligned.

This has been a consistent theme for the past multiple editions, and aligns with contemporary concepts of moral goodness and immorality. Good is loosely defined as 'Altruism, mercy, compassion, charity, helping others at personal cost' and evil has been loosely defined as 'Murder, torture, slavery, rape and harming others'.

 

[Eric V]

In 4e, all the letters in your shorthand matter. If one is LE, but not when it's inconvenient to your evil plans, than you're E. CE can't be anything other than chaotic in their evil, so they are CE.

Similarly, if you believe in personal freedoms but are willing to put the concept aside if it means helping the collective good (especially the weak), you're not CG, you're G. A LG person believes an ordered society is the best (perhaps only) way to accomplish good for all, so they really can't countenance abandoning societal structure in a misguided (to them) idea that it would be best for all.

And, of course, the majority of people are unaligned, as Haldrik points out above.

So, instead of having 9 alignments that step over each other's toes, have all sorts of objections, and are poor descriptors, you end up with a tighter system that speaks more closely to actual moral philosophy.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Did they struggle to play the alignments? Your post indicated that they seemed to handle it just fine, One person even played "textbook" Lawful Evil. Which tells me that they have a good understanding of that alignment.

It sounds to me like they played their alignments quite well, what would have been added to your game to have more rules for it? The ability for them to write different letters on their sheet?

Unlike the other things you listed, they seemed to have not needed the rules for any gameplay purpose.

That can be clearly inferred though cant it?

Look at the actions of evil beings in the MM. Torture, slavery, murder, rape, harming others.

Now look at the actions of good aligned beings in the MM. They do none of that, and actively oppose those acts.

Unicorns dont go around murdering, raping, enslaving and torturing others. They're good aligned. Demons do. They're evilly aligned.

This has been a consistent theme for the past multiple editions, and aligns with contemporary concepts of moral goodness and immorality. Good is loosely defined as 'Altruism, mercy, compassion, charity, helping others at personal cost' and evil has been loosely defined as 'Murder, torture, slavery, rape and harming others'.

Good/Neutral/Evil is never the problem. Those are very easy to define and work with.

Law and Chaos on the other hand seem to be a constant mess