• 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

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

Do they though?

Compare LE Devils with CE Demons, or militant LE Hobgblins with CE Orcs.

Lawful seems to indicate a respect for rigidity, tradition, order, hierarchy and self discipline. Chaos seems to indicate spontaneity, individualism, disorder and unpredictability.

A Lawful creature tends to follow a personal code, respects honour and tradition, and can be counted on to keep their word. A Chaotic creature tends to act out of impulse, be reckless and wild, live in the moment, and bucks accepted norms and conventions.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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
Good point.

Good versus Evil is mostly obvious and easy to use.

It is Lawful versus Chaotic that keeps becoming confused or confusing.



Even the nomenclature is confused. Normally the opposites are:

  • Order/Organization versus Chaos/Random
  • Lawful/Legal versus Criminal/Illegal

So to conflate these different concepts is inherently confusing.

Meanwhile, the original inspiration for D&D made sense,

- Civilization/Urban versus Wilderness/Rural

but this got offensively confused with Good versus Evil. And in any case has little to do with D&D today.

Finally, the opposites

- Individual Identity versus Group Identity

is a meaningful (and ethically neutral) explanation that works most of the time in the context of D&D descriptions. Yet the concept of Individual versus Group isnt especially obvious in the jargon, Chaotic versus Lawful.

In sum, the D&Dism of Lawful versus Chaotic is and has always been a confused and confusing mess.

The confusion is a disappointment because there is something interesting about this polarity.
 

jsaving

Adventurer
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.
The real question is whether you start from the presumption that "working together" helps the weak or inevitably becomes the vehicle of their oppression. You are totally right that if you claim to believe in personal freedom but think the collective good is best served by putting that aside, then you aren't CG. However a truly CG person wouldn't accept your premise that order promotes the collective good, nor would they countenance creating societal structure out of a misguided (to them) sense that it would be best for all.

Now, you might completely disagree with the CG outlook and say wow, someone with that point of view is hopelessly naive about the scale of humanity's suffering and actually quite dangerous because their anti-law views are going to unintentionally block goodness from happening. But on the flip side, the CG person is saying wow, LGs are hopelessly naive in their belief that power won't corrupt and are actually quite dangerous because their pro-law views are going to unintentionally block goodness from happening. And it's that conflict that makes LG versus CG interesting, in my view at least.
 

jsaving

Adventurer
It is Lawful versus Chaotic that keeps becoming confused or confusing.
Great post and I completely agree that personality traits like random behavior, judgmentalness, and poison-using shouldn't appear in a law/chaos alignment writeup any more than, say, vows of poverty should appear in a good/evil alignment writeup. Heading too far down that road risks turning alignment into a straitjacket rather than a description of principles.
 

Hussar

Legend
Do they though?

Compare LE Devils with CE Demons, or militant LE Hobgblins with CE Orcs.

Lawful seems to indicate a respect for rigidity, tradition, order, hierarchy and self discipline. Chaos seems to indicate spontaneity, individualism, disorder and unpredictability.

A Lawful creature tends to follow a personal code, respects honour and tradition, and can be counted on to keep their word. A Chaotic creature tends to act out of impulse, be reckless and wild, live in the moment, and bucks accepted norms and conventions.

I would totally agree with this, but, that's not how demons and devils are presented. At least, not in 3e. Demons were presented as perfectly capable of long term planning, working with others, scheming and plotting. IOW, acting exactly the same as devils.

To me, I look at it like this.

A demon comes to town and isn't stopped - Result: There is a smoking crater where the town used to be. At the bottom of the crater is a heap of bones with the demon sitting on top, picking his teeth with a child's thighbone. A demonic incursion is a malevolent natural disaster. It's the equivalent of an intelligent, malevolent, tornado that doesn't stop until everything is destroyed.

A devil comes to town and isn't stopped. Result: The town prospers, becoming more and more insular, willing to sacrifice anything and anyone for the prosperity brought by the devil. It's okay to sacrifice a couple of first born children in order that everyone prospers. If the town continues, unopposed, it becomes warlike, using it's wealth and prosperity to dominate neighboring communities and bring them under control, feeding the devil that sits on top of a spiritual Ponzi scheme, sucking in souls and gaining in power, which it then uses to aid the town to bring more area under control. It's a far more insidious, and frankly effective, evil.

When there's no practical difference between demons and devils, alignment has been chucked out the window.
 

Eric V

Hero
The real question is whether you start from the presumption that "working together" helps the weak or inevitably becomes the vehicle of their oppression. You are totally right that if you claim to believe in personal freedom but think the collective good is best served by putting that aside, then you aren't CG. However a truly CG person wouldn't accept your premise that order promotes the collective good, nor would they countenance creating societal structure out of a misguided (to them) sense that it would be best for all.

Now, you might completely disagree with the CG outlook and say wow, someone with that point of view is hopelessly naive about the scale of humanity's suffering and actually quite dangerous because their anti-law views are going to unintentionally block goodness from happening. But on the flip side, the CG person is saying wow, LGs are hopelessly naive in their belief that power won't corrupt and are actually quite dangerous because their pro-law views are going to unintentionally block goodness from happening. And it's that conflict that makes LG versus CG interesting, in my view at least.
Well, assuming the CG person is authentically good, they will see that the weaker members of humanity need laws and membership in groups to survive, so...

Now, once one sees that grouping together is especially beneficial for humanity's weakest members, one has to acknowledge that Law, properly enacted is a good thing. Not that the concern about it being abused for wrongdoing isn't present; it totally is. And someone could totally think Law as a general principle is good, but must be ignored if it veers into something oppressive.

That person's alignment in 4e is Good. Simple.
 



Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Yeah, the fact is that CN and CG basically returned to the top alignment choices, and most agree people in this thread seem to agree that the most plausible explanation is that these alignments typically empower the player to play mostly as they want, whether "good" or "neutral." Whether they are "unaligned" or "Chaotic Neutral," the pattern is pretty clear: players don't want alignment getting in the way of roleplaying their characters.
Right premise, wrong conclusion.

It's not that players don't want alignment getting in the way of how they play their characters, it's that they want to choose an alignment that as best as possible ensures nothing else will get in the way of how they play their characters.

Sure thing. Most new players, IME, don't see the point of alignment.
Can't say I blame them, as it seems 5e has neutered alignment to the point of near-redundancy.

Make alignment relevant in the fiction, give it some mechanical benefits and penalties in the game, and they'll see the point fast enough. :)
 

Can't say I blame them, as it seems 5e has neutered alignment to the point of near-redundancy.

Make alignment relevant in the fiction, give it some mechanical benefits and penalties in the game, and they'll see the point fast enough. :)
Sure. And then hate it.

The best thing 5e did with alignment was to make it mechanically irrelevant. Is till don't like it existing, but at least you can basically ignore it and it doesn't really matter if people disagree on what it means.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top