• 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


log in or register to remove this ad


TheSword

Legend
Bell of Lost Souls... primarily a Games a Workshop news site but has also started covering d&d... now it’s popular. Lol.

If we think our threads on Race and Orcs were argumentative theirs was a cesspit,
 

Aldarc

Legend
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.
Seems like you are splitting hairs here, but it's of little consequence.

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. :)
Then you will just as quickly see why it was turned into a vestigial property.

I don't think that every game handles alignment poorly. Dungeon World, for example, provides you bonus XP at the end of the session if you acted according to your alignment in the game session. It's discussed at the end of the session. Alignment is also simplified to Good, Law, Chaos, Evil, and Neutral, rather than the Chaotic Neutral mess that we have. You are not punished for acting against your alignment, but you do get a check of XP for acting according to your alignment, typically in class-specific ways rather in more morally abstract ones.

For example, here are the alignment entries for a Thief:
Chaotic
Leap into danger without a plan.

Neutral
Avoid detection or infiltrate a location.

Evil
Shift danger or blame from yourself to someone else.

Here are the alignment entries for a Cleric:
Good
Endanger yourself to heal another.

Lawful
Endanger yourself following the precepts of your church or god.

Evil
Harm another to prove the superiority of your church or god.
In case people are curious, the paladin only gets to choose from Lawful or Good. A character does not choose multiple.

If people wanted Alignment to be meaningful and reinforced for the character, it may have even been better had Inspiration been tied more directly to Alignment rather than the whole Bonds/Flaws/Ideals. Inspiration then becomes the forces of the D&D Multiverse rewarding the character for leaning into their metaphysical ethical stance which they have aligned themselves to.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
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.
Thing is, I want it to exist at least down to the PC-and-similar-creatures level; which means 5e IMO kinda ruined it.

I want items that bite you when you touch them unless you're Evil. I want spells where alignment can be set as a trigger e.g. if someone Chaotic approaches. I want Evil types to feel icky if they've stepped onto Good-consecrated ground. I want Protection From [xxxx-align] to (be in the game and) function as intended against much more low-level-appropriate things than Demons and Angels. I want the Helm of Opposite Alignment to be feared.

That said, I don't go so far as wanting DM-imposed or rule-imposed penalties for playing out of alignment such as RAW 1e had.
 


Thing is, I want it to exist at least down to the PC-and-similar-creatures level; which means 5e IMO kinda ruined it.

I want items that bite you when you touch them unless you're Evil. I want spells where alignment can be set as a trigger e.g. if someone Chaotic approaches. I want Evil types to feel icky if they've stepped onto Good-consecrated ground. I want Protection From [xxxx-align] to (be in the game and) function as intended against much more low-level-appropriate things than Demons and Angels. I want the Helm of Opposite Alignment to be feared.

That said, I don't go so far as wanting DM-imposed or rule-imposed penalties for playing out of alignment such as RAW 1e had.
Yeah, these are all the sort of rules I loathe and had always painstakingly remove in older editions. I don't want moral debates to be solvable by 'detect alignment,' I don't want alignment to be anything that is objectively knowable to the characters in the setting. Protection/consecration etc works just fine (and more logically) based on creature type. It makes sense if the undead cannot enter the holy ground, it makes zero sense that it would affect, Sam, the dishonest merchant and not affect Liza, the not-terribly-evil vampire.
 


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Yeah, these are all the sort of rules I loathe and had always painstakingly remove in older editions. I don't want moral debates to be solvable by 'detect alignment,'
Know Alignment doesn't solve moral debates, though it can simplify them somewhat.
I don't want alignment to be anything that is objectively knowable to the characters in the setting.
Where I don't mind this.
Protection/consecration etc works just fine (and more logically) based on creature type.
Except creature types (was: races) are, it seems, slowly en route to losing their overarching moral identities in many cases; leaving alignment as the best determinant of who you want to allow through your Glyph and who you want it to trigger on.
It makes sense if the undead cannot enter the holy ground, it makes zero sense that it would affect, Sam, the dishonest merchant and not affect Liza, the not-terribly-evil vampire.
It should affect them all. Sam should, if at all perceptive, notice an uncomfortable feeling while in the area; Liza - as an undead - shouldn't be able to enter the area at all.

And 'not-terribly-evil' is still evil, in any case. :)

Same with unholy ground: while on it the Good PCs should notice, if perceptive, some discomfort while the Neutrals might not. And any Evils might feel happy there.
 

Know Alignment doesn't solve moral debates, though it can simplify them somewhat.
I most definitely don't want that.

Where I don't mind this. Except creature types (was: races) are, it seems, slowly en route to losing their overarching moral identities in many cases; leaving alignment as the best determinant of who you want to allow through your Glyph and who you want it to trigger on.
I don't think creature types should have objective moral identities either.

It should affect them all. Sam should, if at all perceptive, notice an uncomfortable feeling while in the area; Liza - as an undead - shouldn't be able to enter the area at all.

And 'not-terribly-evil' is still evil, in any case. :)
She's neutral, not evil.

Same with unholy ground: while on it the Good PCs should notice, if perceptive, some discomfort while the Neutrals might not. And any Evils might feel happy there.
To me it feel utterly absurd that spells affecting 'evil' or 'good' would have any impact on normal people. Wards against supernatural entities makes sense, wards against somewhat morally compromised hobbits and humans makes no sense at all.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top