• 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

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Sounds like a normal person to me. Normal people do not treat laws as absolutes nor do they think that all laws are equally important. If your moral system cannot distinguish between a person who doesn't think that jaywalking or pirating a PDF is a big deal and a full blown radical anarchist, then I don't think it is a very good system.

Nice argument against a position I don’t take.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The concept of neutral between law and chaos doesn’t make any sense. Let me explain:

Let A = mostly following the law, let B=Mostly never following the law. Let C=following the law 50% of the time and not following the law 50% of the time.

On a law, neutral, chaos slide - A is lawful. B is chaotic. C is neutral. But isn’t C actually the definition of chaos? Whereas B is the definition of anaracy (law of lawlessness).

Thus the idea of a neutral between law and chaos is self defeating. Once it’s introduced the neutral becomes the chaotic and it’s surrounded on both sides by lawful (or code based) behavior.
Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. Your system is unable to differentiate between obeying the law religiously and not giving flying crap about the law.
 


How is it unable to do that? Before I just say no you are wrong I’ll let you make your case.
You just defined anarchy as lawful.

Your description of neutral (your chaos) is a bit suspect too. it is not like such a person randomly decides half the time that laws don't apply, they merely have different standards how they judge the societal importance of the laws. For example if I apply Kant's Categorical Imperative then I might very well conclude and certain laws are unnecessary and thus following them really isn't necessary except perhaps for fear of punishment; and similarly I could recognise that some laws are indeed needed for the society not to collapse. And perhaps you could say that now I'm being lawful if I apply such higher principle, but the truth is in practice this is what most people do even if they wouldn't articulate it in this manner.
 

TheSword

Legend
The concept of neutral between law and chaos doesn’t make any sense. Let me explain:

Let A = mostly following the law, let B=Mostly never following the law. Let C=following the law 50% of the time and not following the law 50% of the time, give or take a little.

On a law, neutral, chaos slide - A is lawful. B is chaotic. C is neutral. But isn’t C actually the definition of chaos? Whereas B is the definition of anaracy (law of lawlessness).

Thus the idea of a neutral between law and chaos is self defeating. Once it’s introduced the neutral becomes the chaotic and it’s surrounded on both sides by lawful (or code based) behavior.
I think you have just made my point for me. You don’t accept there is a space between the extremes. it’s one of the reasons people won’t/can’t/don’t come to terms with alignment.

Following the law for the main part, but occasionally not when it is important not to, or not important to, is not the definition of chaos.

Following all laws is more lawful than only following important laws.

Only following important laws is more lawful than not following any laws at all.

There is a spectrum.
 

TheSword

Legend
You just defined anarchy as lawful.

Your description of neutral (your chaos) is a bit suspect too. it is not like such a person randomly decides half the time that laws don't apply, they merely have different standards how they judge the societal importance of the laws. For example if I apply Kant's Categorical Imperative then I might very well conclude and certain laws are unnecessary and thus following them really isn't necessary except perhaps for fear of punishment; and similarly I could recognise that some laws are indeed needed for the society not to collapse. And perhaps you could say that now I'm being lawful if I apply such higher principle, but the truth is in practice this is what most people do even if they wouldn't articulate it in this manner.
Most people are lawful by nature.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Then what general one- or two-word criteria can I use to determine who gets past my Glyph and who doesn't?

By your definition I can't use alignment. I can't use creature type - I might want the Orc PC to get in but not any other Orcs. I can't use class or level and never could. What's left?

Don't most spells like this allow you to designate certain creatures to be immune to the effect? Like only certain people can enter the Magnificent Mansion, or pass through an alarm spell?

Seems to me if you wanted to let a specific orc through, that would be easy enough to do.

'Normal' people are who you need them to work on! If I'm a village priestess looking to defend my temple I'm probably not very concerned about supernatural entities getting in* but I'm sure as hell concerned about the nasty local Thieves trying to steal the donations kitty; and that's who I want to defend against and - if possible - catch. And if there's a competing temple of opposed ethics to mine in town I want to defend against them too, just as I'd expect them to defend against me.

* - or if I am, I've got problems beyond my pay grade!

Right, and then anyone who can't enter the temple grounds is evil, therefore they should be arrested on that evidence alone. Who murdered the farmer? Well, whoever can't enter in the temple most likely, call a town hall, who ever doesn't show up gets arrested.

Boring story and horrific world, with an easily abused system.

Neutrality - having a moderate approach can either be that you just don’t care enough. Or it can be that you you chart a more balanced path.

And this is one of the biggest problems with neutrality. We always have to include the bit about it showing that you just don't care enough about an issue to have an opinion. Which of course immediately leads a portion of people to say "wait a minute, I do care." and pick a side.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I think you have just made my point for me. You don’t accept there is a space between the extremes. it’s one of the reasons people won’t/can’t/don’t come to terms with alignment.

Following the law for the main part, but occasionally not when it is important not to, or not important to, is not the definition of chaos.

Following all laws is more lawful than only following important laws.

Only following important laws is more lawful than not following any laws at all.

There is a spectrum.

I didn’t say there wasn’t a spectrum. I said there wasnt a neutral.
 


FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
There are many many issues I’m neutral about. Some because I don’t care. Some because I prefer a balanced approach.

Being forced to fall into one camp or the other troubles me.

Whether or not you know it you do fall more in line on one side or the other.

There is certainly a spectrum from following every law to not following any laws.

The only thing I’ve said is that not following any laws isn’t chaotic in the least. It’s one of the more principled things you can do.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top